Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Industrial Development Certificates

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the number of industrial development certificates that have been granted in the Dearne Valley constituency during each of the past four years; and if he will also state the number of jobs involved for males and females, respectively.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has been an intermediate area for some years but that unemployment has risen higher still and is now more than twice the national average? When is the right hon. Gentleman going to do something about the area? Why not make it a special development district? Does he want us to wait until the Industry Bill becomes law, hoping that something might be derived from that?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman will have taken pleasure, with the rest of the House, in the fall in unemployment between April and May, which we expect to be sustained in the June figures. In the travel-to-work area which includes the Dearne Valley, industrial development certificates approved this year alone are expected by the applicants to give rise to over 1,700 jobs when the projects are complete and full manned.

Following is the information:

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES APPROVED IN THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AREAS OF MEXBOROUGH AND WOMBWELL1



Estimated Additional Employment2


Year
Number
Male
Female


1968
8
80
60


1969
9
110
310


1970
6
170
490


1971
23




January-May,1972
14




Notes:


1These employment exchange areas approximate to the Dearne Valley constituency.


2Applicants' estimates of the additional employment expected to arise when the projects are complete and fully manned.


3Details cannot be given because of the risk of disclosing information of individual schemes.


4The I.D.C. exemption limits were raised in December, 1970, from 5,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft.

Natural Gas

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the conversion to natural gas to be completed in England and Wales.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): I am informed that more than 90 per cent, of all conversions in England and Wales will be completed by 1975. The whole programme will take a further two years.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the gas boards have been able to overcome many of the problems which conversion has caused to consumers, such as bad workmanship, long delays in the supply of parts, and additional costs for new appliances? Such matters have been a source of great criticism by consumers and they have received scant attention from the gas boards. Has the position improved?

Mr. Boardman: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, and he has put forward a number of complaints. He will be glad to know that the majority of conversions have been completed without giving rise to complaint and that the rate of call-back has fallen to less than 15 per cent. The aim is to keep the rate of call-back to the minimum and to achieve even better results in the future.

European Economic Community

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is


taking to protect the British insurance industry from the European Economic Commission's draft directives on insurance.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): Under general arrangements agreed with the Community, we are in active consultation with the Commission on matters affecting our insurance industry including the form directives might take.

Mr. Jay: Would not the directives be damaging to the British industry, particularly its overseas earnings? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will not accept them in their present form?

Mr. Davies: Only one directive has yet been published, but three are in the course of preparation. On all these matters we are in discussion with the Commission. The directive already published has yet to be approved by the Council of Ministers, and if it is approved by the Council the interim procedure for consultation will come into force. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are actively in discussion with the Commission on these issues.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from viewing the onset of the EEC with foreboding, the British insurance industry looks forward to it with great anticipation and sees it self becoming the leader of European insurance immediately we become a member?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. The Government's preoccupation in this matter is to ensure that the maximum opportunity is available to the British insurance industry and not at all necessarily to protect it.

Mr. Marten: What attitude are the Government adopting in the discussions taking place?

Mr. Davies: I thought that I had made it clear. The attitude of the Government is to try to ensure that the maximum opportunity is available to our industry on entry into the EEC, and that will, of course, be our general attitude.

Concorde

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take to refute statements

about Concorde, promoted by people with a financial interest in the denigration of the project.

The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Concorde's current tour is an eloquent indication of our determination to demonstrate the capabilities of this aircraft.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the continuing Government support for the project. Is he aware that there is in existence an organisation dedicated to the denigration of Concorde? Many of my constituents wonder what the Government are doing about these weird professional Concorde "knockers" whose job prospects seem to depend on the creation of damaging propaganda. Will he do his best to refute this propaganda and give early opportunities to the public to see Concorde for themselves and to make up their own minds?

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that recent events have proved Concorde's ability to more than hold it sown with those who have a financial interest in knocking the project. I have decided that Concorde, having completed its tour of so many overseas capitals, should return to London next Saturday. I am arranging that, in the limited time available before the resumption of its test programme, all hon. Members shall have an opportunity to see the aircraft as guests of BOAC next Monday, although it will not be possible because of the numbers involved for everyone to board the aircraft. Further, Concorde will be on display to the public for part of next week-end.

Mr. Sheldon: I do not know who the "knockers" are to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring. Is not he aware even at this late stage that there are still serious objections to the over-enthusiastic information being supplied by his Department? Is not he further aware that the cost of the project has at all times exceeded the Department's expectations? It is not good enough to attack those who have raised reasonable objections and to dismiss them as "knockers".

Mr. Heseltine: In any democracy it is right that legitimate objections should be raised, and they have been raised and considered by Governments from both sides of the House. It has been decided that they do not overwhelm the very real


arguments for proceeding with the project. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, (Mr. Adley) has a serious point when he speaks of those who have a clear financial interest in delaying the purchase of Concorde—

Mr. Sheldon: Who? Name them.

Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer the question. I do not think it requires the most sophisticated appraisal of sales prospects to believe that directors of certain American airlines have a financial interest in at least delaying, if not removing altogether, the possibility of buying Concorde, If they put forward arguments which could be reasonably interpreted as being aimed more at delaying their own financial commitments than at a serious appraisal of the aircraft, it is not unreasonable that people should see them for what they are and not expect these particular arguments to be blown up for more than they are worth.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Would my hon. Friend see that those hon. Members who have a significant number of Concorde workers in their constituency are not just allowed to view Concorde but are able to take a trip in it?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. She and the whole House will be aware that approximately one in every four Members of the House has employees in his or her constituency engaged on the Concorde project. I am sure that she will forgive me when I say that her long-term interest must be that Concorde remains at Heathrow for the minimum time so that it can get on with its test programme.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman has accepted responsibility for this Question and he ought to tell the House who are these "knockers" who have a financial interest in denigrating this project. Is he not aware that there is still some concern, and will be continuing concern, on two or three grounds? First of all there is the noise of the aircraft on take-off, flyover and landing. Is he aware that it is to be the noisiest aircraft of any of the new generation aircraft for years to come? Secondly, there is the price of

the aircraft and, thirdly there is the financing of its sales to BOAC. Is he aware that this latter must be causing some concern to the major airlines, as is shown by the fact that Air France and the French Government have still not reached an agreement?

Mr. Heseltine: I am only too glad to debate these matters with the Opposition. If the right hon. Member, through the normal channels, would like to seek a debate on the issue, I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends would wish to consider this most interesting development of doubts from hon. Members opposite, now that they do not carry the burden of taking any decisions. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates that any development or prototype involves uncertainties by the mere definition of what one is trying to achieve. I believe that the whole country appreciates that what Concorde has achieved over the last three weeks is one of the most remarkable prototype sales campaigns that has ever been undertaken.

Hong Kong

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he discussed with the Japanese Government during his recent visit to Japan its scheme of generalised preferences in relation to Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: Yes Sir. I emphasised to Japanese Ministers Her Majesty's Government's concern at the limited nature of the Japanese generalised preference arrangements for Hong Kong. They undertook to consider the points I raised.

Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not difficult to see what advantage there is for Japan making the present exceptions to its scheme of generalised preferences to Hong Kong? Is it not possible that a likely result would be simply to transfer to other developing countries in Asia which are the closest competitors of Hong Kong the trade in those items in which Hong Kong has an interest?

Mr. Davies: Yes. I believe there is a strong element of that. It seemed that


the very comprehensive and wide-ranging lists of exclusions from the generalised preference scheme seemed at times irrational even from the Japanese point of view, and this point I naturally brought forcefully home to Ministers concerned. We are awaiting their reply to the submission that Her Majesty's Government have made to the Japanese Government on this subject, reinforced by what I said.

Textiles

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the present position of the negotiations over textiles with the European Economic Community.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 5th June to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett).—[Vol. 838, c. 2–3.]

Mr. Meacher: Since the British Textile Employers Federation assumes that at least 5,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the removal of quotas after entry to the EEC, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any policy to reduce this appalling job loss? Has he at least sought to secure an enforceable apportionment to the EEC textile imports according to either population or GNP on a basis that is fair both to the developing countries and to the Ten?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman's calculation in his letter to my right hon. Friend was very much greater than that which he has mentioned. He has mentioned the top end of the employers' calculation which, as he knows, was 3,000 to 5,000. This is certainly a serious matter and the Government are very much interested in the current discussions.

Mr. Fidler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Press reports of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) which purport to attribute to the Prime Minister the statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am reading, Mr. Speaker. The purport, and I quote—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is quoting from a newspaper, I must point out that he is not allowed to do so.

Mr. Fidler: My memory will serve me. Is my right hon. Friend aware that reports attribute to Her Majesty's Government a statement that there is to be a continual rundown of the textile industry, which is regarded as necessary? Would be repudiate any such suggestions?

Mr. Noble: I think the report that my hon. Friend has cited represents accurately what the employers, and indeed to a considerable extent the unions, regarded as the likely result over the next three or four years.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to accept a complete abolition of import quotas on cotton yarn with all the disastrous effects that would have?

Mr. Noble: Certainly not. I gave an answer about cotton yarn to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), on 21st April. That remains the position.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that our experience with wool textiles, like that of the Six, will be that there will be a marked increase in intra-Community trade and that with extra-Community imports the degree of penetration is not likely to be severe?

Mr. Noble: I hope my hon. Friend is right. I am sure that hon. Members opposite do, too. These are matters which are currently being discussed, and there is nothing further that I can say about them.

Mr. Meacher: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the series of disgraceful answers given by the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must do it in the proper form—"unsatisfactory nature."

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Cotton Yarn

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been received recently from importers or manufacturers for further relief from duty for cotton yarn.


under Section 7 of the Import Duties Act, 1958.

Mr. Noble: Eleven applications have been received for relief on imports to be made during 1972. Nine have been allowed, one withdrawn and the other is still under consideration.

Mr. Lamond: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is a very disappointing answer since quite recently relief from duty was granted to 3-fold 8S cotton yard when the producers of that type of yarn in this country were passing through a difficult period, with the workers on short time, and when there were ample supplies available? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I hope he will take this sort of consideration into account before he makes decisions about these matters in future?

Mr. Noble: Those matters were taken into consideration. Relief is given only where the goods fit the criteria under Section 7.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Section 7 of the Import Duties Act is to be substantially revised by EEC legislation? Can he tell the House what changes are contemplated?

Mr. Noble: In simple terms, at the moment Section 7 relief is given under certain criteria as long as the interests of the producers in this country are not damaged thereby. If we join the Common Market, Section 7 relief will continue to be available on much the same basis as at present, subject to the interests of other Community producers.

County Durham (Employment)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to assist in the provision of alternative employment at Consett and Stanley, County Durham, to offset the current loss of jobs at the Lead-gate Engineering works, at the Medomsley Colliery, at the Morrison Busty Colliery and at the Ransome Hoffmann Pollard works.

Mr. Chataway: I am confident that the extensive measures to stimulate the economy and those foreshadowed in the Industry Bill will go a long way to reduce unemployment in Consett and Stanley, as elsewhere.

Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that in the four establishments mentioned in my Question more than 1,000 redundancies have been announced within the space of a few weeks, and that, with an unemployment rate hovering consistently at around 7 per cent., that is a shattering blow to the area? Is it not time that instead of giving the sort of complacent answer he has given he gave some evidence of positive, urgent action?

Mr. Chataway: The facts are that unemployment dropped from 7·8 per cent. in April to 6·5 per cent. in May and that a further reduction will follow in June. Moreover, special development areas like this are getting greater assistance than they have ever had before. On top of that, we are introducing a rate of growth in the economy faster than ever before, and that will be of assistance to areas such as the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that improvement in areas such as this has been such that he need not reconsider withdrawing the regional employment premium?

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down a Question about the regional employment premium, I shall be happy to deal with that point. I was answering the Question on the Paper, and saying that with special development area status this area is getting greater incentives than ever before.

Mr. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that neither industrialists in the area nor workpeople share his confidence? Is he also aware that special development area status now means very little in west Durham because of the very silly extension of it by the Government to such a large area in the Northern Region? The truth of the matter is that in west Durham the general opinion is that this Government have written off that part of the world from industrial activities. When will he take urgent, positive measures instead of talking about the Budget incentives working through? There is no sign of that in west Durham, I can assure him.

Mr. Chataway: The unemployment figures show a marked improvement and the new incentives are greater than ever before. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is doing a great deal to attract new


industry into the area if he paints so black a picture as that.

Mr. Watkins: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Luton Airport

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now able to state his intentions regarding aircraft movement at night at Luton Airport in the summer of 1973.

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reductions he expects in night movements at Luton Airport in 1973.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am pleased to tell the House that the Luton Corporation and the Luton airline operators have decided to reduce aircraft movements at night in the summer season of 1973.
Following discussions with my Department, it has been agreed that the limit on ordinary night jet movements in the summer season next year will be reduced to 3,650, of which not more than 1,440 will be take-offs. This compares with the expected 4,500 night jet movements, of which 1,890 will be take-offs, in the current year. The Corporation has further decided that, in view of the expected operation at Luton next year of the much quieter TriStar aircraft with its Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, provision should be made for an additional 340 movements by that aircraft, of which not more than 170 will be take-offs.
I welcome these decisions as a significant contribution to our objective of reducing noise disturbance. It represents a reduction of some 24 per cent. in the number of less quiet take-offs at night between 1972 and 1973.

Mr. Madel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure he appreciates that there is a growing desire in my constituency that the same summer night restrictions as exist at Heathrow and Gatwick should also be applied at Luton, especially when many in my constituency work in continuous noise throughout the day. Given that Foulness airport will not be operational for some time, can my hon. Friend say how he could further

reduce night jet noise at Luton till Foulness is operational, which will then take away some of these night movements from inland airports?

Mr. Heseltine: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance of my interest in this matter. We are looking forward to the introduction of the much quieter TriStar aeroplane next year, and this is bound to be important in helping my hon. Friend's constituents. I agree that one of the factors which must help particularly is the opening of the new Maplin Sands airport as soon as possible

Mr. Allason: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving the first reduction in aircraft movements that has ever been achieved with Luton Corporation and congratulate him upon the pressure he put on the corporation? If my arithmetic is correct—and I am not sure that it is—this appears to be only a 5 per cent. reduction in night movements in the next year compared with 1971, and that after a very considerable growth in previous years. Something a great deal more dramatic is required to protect the sleep of those who are living under the flight path.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me for not having with me the comparative figures for a year ago. I was dealing with the current year. What we must do is to achieve a down turn of the graph, which has been rising quickly, and certainly as compared with 1972 the number of night take-offs is reduced by 24 per cent. The actual numbers are: 1972, 1,890: and the estimate for 1973 is 1,440.

Mr. Mason: While I recognise that this is one method of reducing noise around an airport, for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible, and in the immediate vicinity of Luton, which will welcome this announcement, may I ask whether he can inform the House to what extent he has received any deputation from the tour operators' study group which is particularly keen that night flights should not be curtailed because of the adverse effect on holidays abroad?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman raises one of the conflicting issues in this matter. One realises, in doing the sort of job for which I am responsible,


that there is a balance of convenience. In direct answer to his question, I would say that I have personally received no such deputation.

Tourist Accommodation (Registration)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet reached a decision on the English Tourist Board's recommendations to him for statutory registration of tourist accommodation, statutory notification of prices and a voluntary system of classification.

Mr. Chataway: I have at present nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 5th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 8.]

Mr. McCrindle: As we are now at the height of the tourist season, and in view of the general welcome given to the report, particularly in regard to prices notification, will my right hon. Friend undertake, consistent with the need to encourage discussion with the hotel industry, to try to move at such a pace that the benefit of the recommendations of the Tourist Board will be made available to next year's tourists?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, I will certainly consider this as quickly as I can.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that there he has been dragging his feet, and that his Department has been dragging its feet, on this matter for far too long, and that this is a matter of vital importance not only to the tourist industry but to the country in so far as the balance of payments is affected? Will he start doing something now?

Mr. Chataway: My Department has been involved in doing something about it for some time. As I said to my hon. Friend, I am considering the matter as quickly as I can, but, as the hon. Member probably knows, a number of different views are being put to the Department.

Consumer Protection

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will commission a study to make international comparisons on the effectiveness of consumer protection legislation.

Mr. Noble: The Council of Europe and OECD have both undertaken comparative studies of consumer protection legislationin member countries. I do not think I should be justified in commissioning a further study of this kind at present.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only the EEC countries which seem to have given higher priority than we have to legislation for consumer protection, and that it is extremely important that we should seek to discern how effective such legislation has been so that we can act in the most effective way possible to protect our own consumers?

Mr. Noble: It is for this reason that we are watching very carefully what other countries are doing, but the OECD, as my hon. Friend knows, covers all the most developed countries in the world, and conditions in the under-developed countries are very different indeed from our own. The protection given to consumers under the provisions of our criminal law stands up very well indeed by comparison to what is available to most consumers.

Mr. Darling: Is the Minister aware that the Council of Europe investigation has taken the form of asking the equivalent of the consumer council in each country concerned for an assessment of the effectiveness of that country's legislation? Does he appreciate that the Council of Europe inquiry, which is working under my direction, is having considerable difficulty in getting the information needed from the United Kingdom because of the abolition of the Consumer Council?

Mr. Noble: I have the greatest sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot get the information he wants. If he will write to me about it, I will do my best to help him.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does the Minister know that in Canada a separate Ministry is concerned solely with consumer affairs and does he think that that might be worth looking at? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Queen's Speech indicated that legislation would be forthcoming this Session to give further protection to consumers? The Session is getting on. Is there any news about that?

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend perhaps should await the answer to Question No. 20 which covers this point. I note what he says about Canada.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we do not regard him as an adequate substitute for the Consumer Council? Does he realise that in any international study this country will probably show up badly? I hope that he will not use the study as an excuse for further delay. We do not want more reports from the Government; we want signs of life. If that is asking too much from the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will at least give an indication that he is capable of action.

Mr. Noble: I would not dream of trying to take the place of the Consumer Council in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Action will be coming, I hope soon.

British Capital (Overseas Ventures)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what instructions he is giving to overseas posts as regards finding out what possible ventures of British capital, in partnership with local capital, there are that could be insured under the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Bill.

Mr. Noble: Overseas posts already have instructions to report information on possible joint ventures to the Department for dissemination to industry. We are examining whether anything further is necessary in this respect. Applications for investment insurance by British firms involved in such ventures will be given sympathetic consideration by ECGD.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the benefits to Great Britain and the developing countries of capital investment in partnership, and particularly of feasibility studies carried out by British consultants? Will he ensure that commercial diplomats do all they possibly can to extend this as much as possible?

Mr. Noble: Yes, I give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance on this point. I have discussed it with the staff at every post I have visited over the last two years, and they are well aware of the possibilities. I have also stressed the part that British consultants can play.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the current rate of interest being charged, in view of the raising of Bank rate? Will he also comment on the dislocation caused to this service by the floating of the £?

Mr. Noble: These are to some extent separate questions but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate of interest charged by ECGD has come down.

Steel (Pricing Policy)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest estimate he has made of the likely increase in the price of British Steel Corporation steel products upon accession to the European Economic Community on 1st January, 1973.

Mr. Tom Boardman: As I have already told the House, the aim is for BSC to move into profitability and regardless of entry into Europe some price increases will be necessary. The level of our steel prices within the Community will be determined by competition between the producers.

Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some imprecision in that Answer and that an elaboration has been given topicality by the events of Friday? Are changes in sterling parity rates expected to increase the price of British steel, or otherwise? If the Government were unwise enough to move towards a system of price freeze or control, would my hon. Friend have authority under the Treaty of Paris to require compliance by the British Steel Corporation?

Mr. Boardman: The price structure is for the industry to assess. Steel is operating in an internationally competitive market, and the intention of the BSC and the Government is that it should be profitable. On the rôle of intervention, my hon. Friend will be aware that the powers of direction which followed representation from the Consumer Council are being repealed by the European Communities Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: Who is in charge of BSC pricing—Lord Melchett or M. Jacques Ferry?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman should not draw too much from speculative reports based on what is said by


spokesmen of the European Community. The British Steel Corporation is in charge of its own pricing policy.

Sir R. Cary: I attended the final meeting at Irlam last Thursday, when it was made known that the plant was to be shut down by 1974, throwing 5,000 people out of work. One justification for it was that the rationalisation of the steel industry and the transfer of that work to other quarters would lead to an economic price for steel. The Question implies quite substantial increases; will my hon. Friend say a word about that?

Mr. Boardman: I might perhaps correct my hon. Friend in his statement that the announcement on Friday implied the removal of 5,000 job opportunities. That is a mistake in the figures, and I know he will have them correctly. I welcome discussions with my hon. Friend and with hon. Members on both sides of the House on this problem. On the suggestion that the closure is in any way due to the pricing policy in Europe, that again is perhaps a misinterpretation of the true position. It is, of course, necessary to secure rationalisation of the industry so that steel can be competitive, and that applies whether or not we enter the Community and whatever the outcome of any other discussions.

Package Holidays (Prosecutions)

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions relating to package holidays there were under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 in each year since the Act came into force, and of these how many resulted in convictions.

Mr. Noble: There were no prosecutions in December, 1968. In the following three years and in 1972 up to mid-June, the Department has been notified of five, 15, 26 and 15 prosecutions and three, 11, 19 and 10 convictions respectively.

Mr. Fry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he not agree that there are comparatively few prosecutions, despite the number of complaints? In view of the experience with Cosmos tours, of one of my constituents, will my right hon. Friend consider making it obligatory to state in the travel brochure

whether the hotel or cruise ship for which bookings are being taken is still under construction or refit and what is the estimated completion date?

Mr. Noble: I will certainly think about that, but it would make the issue of brochures extremely difficult.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a highly satisfactory answer? Bearing in mind the millions of people who take their holidays abroad each year, the number of convictions is extremely small. Nevertheless, it is necessary for brochures to tell the right story. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that sometimes the blame lies with hotels abroad and not with the tour operator?

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The number of convictions is very small when one realises that nearly 3 million tourists each year go on this type of holiday. He is also right in saying that sometimes the fault lies with the overseas hoteliers and not with our package tour operators. None the less, it is right that the House should take this matter seriously.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop thinking about this, as he said he would, and do something?

Mr. Noble: Any action that has to be taken is taken by the local weights and measures authorities and not by myself.

Mr. Alan Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman look at the difficulties created by the protraction of the legal process, as happened in the Clarkson's case? Does this not raise a serious danger that some unscrupulous operators may use legal devices to delay adjudication until after next season's bookings are over?

Mr. Noble: I think everybody realises that certain legal proceedings take much too long, but I do not think I can deal with that problem.

Steel Industry (McKinsey Report)

Mr. Varley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he had with the British Steel Corporation concerning his decision to commission McKinsey's to undertake a study of the British steel industry; when


the report was received by his Department; and on what date it was shown to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. John Davies: The McKinsey study on the international steel environment was commissioned with the full knowledge of the British Steel Corporation. The Report was submitted shortly after that of the joint steering group, and a copy was passed to the BSC immediately.

Mr. Varley: Is it not extraordinary that the work of the joint steering group was completed without both sides having knowledge of what the McKinsey study contains? Is it not also true that the British Steel Corporation, now having belatedly seen the McKinsey study, absosultely rejects its findings about the future size of the British steel industry?

Mr. Davies: No, I do not think it was extraordinary at all. It was a highly sensible arrangement. The whole purpose of it was to have a study made within the framework of the steel industry and to have, as a counter check, a major study undertaken by a well-known firm of consultants with deep experience in this whole field. There is no question of anybody acting belatedly. As soon as the report was available, it was passed to the corporation.

Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman still has not answered the question. Is it not true that the corporation, now having seen the report, rejects its findings about the future size of the British steel industry?

Mr. Davies: It may well be that the corporation will not agree with what McKinsey said. That only shows the value of getting two views on the same subject. This was the purpose of the exercise, and that one may not agree with the other is perhaps quite normal.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Did the study have regard only to production problems, outputs and potentials and not to the administration of the corporation? If not, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be advisable to have an inquiry into the appropriateness of having the Corporation's headquarters in London?

Mr. Davies: The study carried out by McKinsey dealt not with the British Steel Corporation as such but with the inter-

national steel environment within which the framework of future investment was to be considered. There may be a case for a deep study into the administration of the corporation, but that will be a matter for the corporation and not for me

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that in North Wales the steel industry employs 16,000 men? Could he say whether the study contains any grave implications for the Shotton works, which has 12 open-hearth furnaces?

Mr. Davies: The study has some reference to the future of all steel plants in this country because it gives a framework within which the corporation's strategic decisions are being worked out by the corporation. It would be wrong to pretend that it does not have a powerful influence on these matters. The number of people involved in each plant is a matter for serious concern, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House know how particularly I am concerned with these problems. However, it is right that the whole appreciation of the assessment of the future investment of the corporation should take place within the framework of an adequate knowledge of world circumstances, which is what the McKinsey study was all about. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that in many ways the future investment programme of the corporation is intimately caught up with the question of rationalisation of the corporation and the steel industry generally; they are matters which inevitably are intermingled.

Manchester (Industrial Inquiries)

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries from industrialists with regard to the Manchester travel-to-work area have been received since the designation of the new North-Western intermediate area on 22nd March, 1972; and how many new jobs in total, and for men and women, respectively, are expected to result from these inquiries.

Mr. Chataway: Eighteen inquiries for sites or premises. It is too early to say how many jobs may arise from these inquiries.

Mr. Kaufman: Is it not clear that, after three months of new incentives, not one single guaranteed new job has been provided by them? Therefore, in view of the fact that for the first time in history the North West has a higher rate of unemployment than Wales and that there are 2,400 further redundancies expected at Irlam, what further positive proposals have the Government to make to save the North West and Manchester from sliding into an irreversible decline?

Mr. Chataway: In fact the IDC's granted since March have resulted in projects which should give rise to 900 additional jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that the unemployment figures between April and May dropped by 2,500. It is the Government's intention to continue the strong downward trend in unemployment in the Manchester area which is obvious at present.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not my right hon. Friend sometimes weary of well doing? Does it not strike him, after having had only a few months of his new responsibilities, that with every new attempt to devise better gradations of industrial development status, those who receive them are dissatisfied and those who do not are even more dissatified?

Mr. Chataway: I would say to my hon. Friend that well doing is a great deal less wearisome than ill doing.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "downward trend of unemployment"—which was his phrase—did not manifest itself very markedly in the figures announced for the North West last Thursday—against a background of a contraction in the British Steel Corporation and the redundancies which are expected to arise in the textile industry? Will he give special attention to the growing unemployment and loss of job opportunities in the Greater Manchester area, and, indeed, in the North West generally?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman knows that under any Government there are bound to be contractions in the steel industry, and that is absolutely apparent. This adds to the size of the task we have before us, but I have told the House that we are determined to ensure that the expansion of employment opportunities

which is going on in Manchester will continue.

Crowther Report (Consumer Credit)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have now taken towards implementation of the chief aims of the Crowther Report on consumer credit.

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Crowther Report.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a consumer credit ombudsman will be created as recommended by the Crowther Committee.

Mr. Noble: Consideration of the recommendations of the Crowther Committee for major reform of the law relating to consumer credit has reached an advanced stage. Their implementation would require complicated new legislation and my officials are now consulting various interests on a number of important technical points which arise.

Mr. Sutcliffe: While welcoming the Government's decision a year ago to remove hire-purchase restrictions, may I ask my right hon. Friend how long it will be before the consumer is protected by the obligation to disclose true rates of interest and the cost of credit? Will my right hon. Friend consider urgently amending the legislation to achieve that result?

Mr. Noble: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is exactly what we are doing. The Committee's recommendation in respect of disclosure of the true cost of credit is extremely complicated. This is only one aspect of the subject, and consultations will have to take place.

Mr. Luce: In view of the apparent growth in the amount of misleading information about the true cost of credit, would the Minister also bear in mind that the Crowther Report highlighted the state of confusion and fragmentation in consumer credit law? Will he consider taking the earliest possible action to give the consumer better protection in this respect?

Mr. Noble: Yes, my right hon. Friend and I have told the House that we hope to legislate comprehensively in this subject.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Younger Committee on Privacy is also believed to be about to recommend the creation of a credit commissioner? Will he please recognise the urgency of the situation, particularly bearing in mind the fact that, with the rapid rate of inflation under the present Government, more and more people can afford to live only on credit?

Mr. Noble: Yes, I recognise the urgency of this matter. It is also necessary in this complicated subject to get the answers right.

Mr. Edward Taylor: In view of the consultations which are taking place, can my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to legislate in the next Session of Parliament if the Government wish to do so?

Mr. Noble: That is our hope, and I hope that it will continue to be the case.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are getting tired of the humbug and cant of hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite, who are suddenly and very belatedly taking an interest in the protection of the consumer? They are all—with the exception of the hon. Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce), who asked one of the Questions and who came in too late to vote against the retention of the Consumer Council—seeking to convey the impression that they want to protect the consumer. Is this not utter humbug?

Mr. Noble: I think that very many people in the House and in the country will draw a distinction between protecting the consumer and the Consumer Council.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Since my right hon. Friend talks about more complicated legislation, will he bear in mind that there are many right hon. and hon. Members and a number of people outside who think that we could do with less complicated legislation? Will my right hon. Friend think again before introducing such legislation at an early date?

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has slept on this report for 15 months and that if that has been an uncomfortable posture for him, it has led to even more discomfort for housewives who have been denied the protection that they would have had if the report had been implemented? Is he aware, further, that it is not good enough to do what he did last time and use the shambles of the Government's legislative time table as an excuse for bringing forward no proposals? While we understand why the Government cannot legislate at the moment, that is no reason why, 15 months' later, the right hon. Gentleman should not have given a detailed indication of the Government's intentions so that some firms could act in anticipation.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman is being unreasonable. It would have been impossible to produce anything approaching comprehensive legislation 15 months ago.

Paper Industry

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on representations made to him on behalf of the paper industry in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Davies: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development met a delegation of Members on 8th June. The discussion centred mainly on the negotiations in Brussels between the EEC and the non-candidate EFTA countries insofar as they relate to the paper and board industries. My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government have been and will continue to be in close and constant touch with the United Kingdom paper and board industry about these negotiations.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive reply. However, will not he concede that this is an industry which is likely to call upon the Government in relation to the provisions of the Industry Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, in relation to the firm of Wiggins Teape, he will give no assistance unless the closure notice is withdrawn in respect of the firm in my constituency which is a subsidiary of that company?

Mr. Davies: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this closure. All I can tell him is that I have had no request from the company for assistance under the Industry Bill, should it be enacted in due course.

Mr. Trew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who met our right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development recently to discuss these problems were greatly encouraged to learn about the Government's positive line in the EEC negotiations on matters affecting the industry? On the domestic front, what consideration has my right hon. Friend been able to give to the industry's fuel oil costs?

Mr. Davies: The whole question of energy costs is under close consideration at the moment. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about our consultations with the industry. In these negotiations with the Community, we are seeking strongly to defend the interests of the industry.

Union des Proprietaires Beiges

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to the Commission of the European Economic Community and the Belgian Government over the blocking by the Belgian Government of the take-over of Union des Proprietaires Beiges by the British company, Equity and Law.

Mr. Noble: Representations have been made to the Belgian Government seeking reconsideration of their decision in this case, and, failing that, assurances about their probable attitude to similar applications.

Mr. Lamont: As one of the advantages of British entry into the Community is supposed to be the creation of European groupings, is not this unjustified discrimination against a British company? Has not the clause of the Belgian Commercial Code, under which this action has been taken, been condemned by the Commission, and should not strong representations be made to the Belgian Government and the European Commission that such economic nationalism is incompatible with the Common Market?

Mr. Noble: We made very strong representations to the Belgian Govern-

ment. We cannot make representations to the EEC Commission since we are not yet a member of the Community. Perhaps it would help if I said that I understand that the Belgian Government expect shortly to pass legislation which will exempt Common Market firms from the sort of action which was taken against Equity and Law.

Dumping (Japan and United States)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the investigation of the question of dumping of industrial products in the United Kingdom by Japan and the United States of America.

Mr. Noble: We are in close touch with British industry on a number of cases involving imports from these countries but none is presently the subject of formal anti-dumping investigation.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem has existed for a very long time and that some of us have made representations and have brought along deputations to the Ministry concerning the electronics industry, which happens to be my own interest? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that there is a prima facie case to show that American firms are using cheap labour subsidiaries in the Far East to dump on to the British market electronic components with which we cannot compete and that this has resulted in one closure in my constituency and, I am sure, others in different parts of the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remedy this very unsatisfactory situation?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, of course. There has been discussions with me, and with other Ministers in my Department, about these problems. However, none of the industries has yet presented a formal application for anti-dumping action supported by prima facie evidence of materially injurious dumping, so that we cannot take action in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. My right hon. Friend spoke about some of these matters in Japan when he was there recently.

Mr. Tapsell: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of Japan,


while there are immense opportunities for increasing bilateral trade between us to the mutual benefit of both countries, a great deal depends on the genuine determination by the Japanese at all levels to ensure that this is trade from which both parties can benefit equally?

Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend was in Japan he made that clear to both industry and Ministers, there and the situation is being reviewed in September.

Mr. Bishop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of workers in this country in the ball bearing industry whose jobs are at risk as a result of unfair Japanese competition and that repeated suggestions have been made for anti-dumping legislation, import quotas, and aid to the industry itself, as well as for safeguards against the Japanese getting a base here in order to compete unfairly with us in the Common Market? Is not it time that the Government took action, instead of waiting till September to see what replies are forthcoming? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that in respect of the ball bearing industry, I am much too courteous to say that his replies so far have had little bearing on the problem?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that the Question is about anti-dumping. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is the same as my answer to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), that the industry has not presented any formal application. What my right hon. Friend did in Japan was to discuss matters on the broader basis of restricting excessive exports from Japan to this country.

British Steel Corporation (Headquarters)

Mr. Tugendhat: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give general directions to the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation to move their headquarters out of the City of Westminster and into the development areas.

Mr. Tom Boardman: No, Sir, this is essentially a matter for the corporations themselves, but I have recently written to their chairmen asking them to bear the Government's dispersal policy in mind

when considering the location of their offices.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is an encouraging answer, but that we hope for much more? Is he aware, further, that my constituency is literally being choked to death by excessive demands for office accommodation in central London, whereas the development areas in which the coal and steel industries are primarily located are being starved to death by the shortage of service industries and would welcome these head offices? Is not it unjustified that these corporations should occupy vast and expensive premises in my constituency when they would be better sited in development areas and we should be better off without them?

Mr. Boardman: I am sure that the chairmen of the nationalised industries will note with care what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Harper: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the course of last Monday's debate this point was adduced by a number of hon. Members on this side of the House? Is he aware, further, that if the Coal Board's headquarters was shifted from Hobart House to Yorkshire it would give renewed confidence and an added boost to the coalfield and would reverse the ever-increasing spiral towards higher unemployment and start it on a downward trend?

Mr. Boardman: I am not sure that I entirely followed the hon. Gentleman's argument. But there is common ground that the more offices that can be moved out of central London without detracting from the efficiency of the organisation, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

Mr. Blaker: Would my hon. Friend agree that Blackpool and the Fylde coast are very suitable areas for further office development?

Mr. Boardman: Yes, indeed. They are areas in which I should welcome the opportunity of visiting the chairmen in their new offices.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister reconsider the evidence on this matter, bearing in mind that many of us who were members of the Standing Committee


on the nationalisation of steel put forward the point of view that has been put forward in the Question? Will he also ask the British Steel Corporation to give serious consideration to the announcement made last week, bearing in mind not only redundancies, which in Scotland we cannot afford to carry, but also social consequences? Will he ask the British Steel Corporation to give this matter some serious thought?

Mr. Boardman: Yes. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question goes into a wider matter than the Question on the Order Paper. The point about dispersal is well known and is noted by the chairmen concerned.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister ask the National Coal Board, the British Steel Corporation and other nationalised industries to undertake feasibility studies about this matter and to present their reports publicly, so that we can see what can be done? Second, should not the Government do something about office development permits in Central London which have more than doubled in the last two years, which is quite scandalous?

Mr. Boardman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there should be any direction of labour or industry in peace-time, and I hope that he is not suggesting that the chairmen of these industries are unaware of

the advantages there may be in getting out of London. Had it been considered necessary to require them to be out of London, that is a matter which hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches could have had in mind when they passed the necessary legislation.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was a Conservative Opposition Amendment to, the Iron and Steel Bill which placed a statutory obligation on the British Steel Corporation to spread its administrative offices around the country? Despite that, the Tubes Division Offices in Glasgow have been transferred and the General Steel Division Headquarters has been downgraded. Will my hon. Friend press upon the British Steel Corporation that it is utter commercial nonsense to spend the fortune that it spends on maintaining headquarters in London when they should be near to where the steel is produced?

Mr. Boardman: I am not sure that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that headquarters must be near the point of production. There may be counter advantages in headquarters being nearer to other centres. On my hon. Friend's point about the need to locate offices in the area, particularly Scotland, I know that he has brought this point to the attention of the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation and that it will be noted.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — FOOD PRICES

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to move the Motion, I would inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Fred Peart: I beg to move,
That this House strongly condemns Her Majesty's Government for their utter failure to control rising prices, in total breach of their election pledges to the British people.
Today we are debating food prices. Although the debate will finish at 7 p.m., I believe it to be one of the most important debates that we shall have this Session. For this reason, and as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, I hope that I shall set a good example—unlike when I spoke in the debate on the European Communities when we had a long discussion on the common agricultural policy—and try to confine my speech to about 20 minutes. I hope, therefore, that many hon. Members will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because even on the Government side of the House there is concern about the rise in food prices.
This concern inevitably arises, too, out of recent happenings in the economy. Whether or not the £floats down, and whatever the percentage, inevitably food prices will be affected. I read only this morning in the Daily Telegraph, in the column of its distinguished political correspondent, Mr. Boyne, that there is concern on the part of Conservative back-benchers.
There is a very interesting contribution by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who said this to his constituents during the week-end:
Without other measures, the £ is going to float with ever increasing speed from the purse of the housewife into the pocket of the shop keeper.
The hon. Member continued:
Other machinery has got to be set up to reinforce the Chancellor's voluntary prices

and incomes policy, weakened so much by recent events. Otherwise the £ will float, but the housewives, and those on lower incomes, will be drowned in a sea of rising prices.
Other hon. Members took up the same line, including the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). So it is not just on this side of the House that there is concern about rising prices.
High prices have not been high-lighted just because of the recent beef situation. Throughout the year from time to time we have had a series of headlines in nearly all our leading newspapers describing in detail the increases which have occurred. I need not read them out. Many hon. Members will have seen them over the months. Even as far back as last year, on 30th June, 1971, a headline in The Guardian said:
Price of food up 10 per cent. since election.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When was that?

Mr. Peart: That was in 1971. I hope that my hon. Friend will not interrupt me too much, because I want to finish my speech. I hope that he will catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
On Thursday, 1st June, 1972, a headline in the Financial Times said:
Meat—Britain gets a foretaste of Common Market prices.
Even the Farmers' Weekly mentioned recently the situation in Ulster, which is of great concern to hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies, and said:
Ulster beef prices near luxury level.
That was on 9th June. A statement by the Chief Executive Officer of the Northern Ireland Livestock Marketing Commission, Mr. O'Brien, warned that this was a situation that would develop more and more as the United Kingdom neared entry to the EEC.
On 4th June the Sunday Times said:
Beef prices likely to stay up despite Prior action.
I could continue with such quotations, but the simple fact is that Ministers gave pledges to the country at the General Election.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And since then.

Mr. Peart: I shall not read in full the Prime Minister's speech because it has


often been quoted inside and outside the House. Where now is the phrase "at a stroke"? Where is his pledge? Has it been fulfilled? The Prime Minister gave even more pledges. I have a whole series of examples from the Prime Minister when he from time to time addressed Conservative gatherings. There is the famous speech at Leicester on 3rd June, 1970. The Prime Minister said then:
There may be an overseas balance of payments surplus, but there are precious few housewives who have a surplus on their house-keeping.
In the same speech at Leicester the right hon. Gentleman said:
We are determined to put the brake on prices.
He also said:
Then there is the housewife…The dinner money at school takes more out of her purse. Clothing the children is more and more expensive.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: VAT and all that.

Mr. Peart: What does the nation now think of the present Prime Minister and his promises at the General Election? I remember how hon. Members now on the Government benches harried my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Their Leader gave specific pledge after specific pledge to reduce and control prices. The quotations are there and cannot be denied.
But, after all, I understand why those pledges were not fulfilled. It is because the propaganda at that time was dishonest. I shall explain to the House why that was so. The Conservative Party, then in Opposition, campaigned on a dear food policy. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture, who is now responsible for prices, has time and again said that he believes in a high-price food policy. I have a quotation from his speech in the fisheries debate on 29th July, 1966. I have quoted it before in the House, but not in full. I liked his strong language. The right hon. Gentleman said:
As a farmer, I admire the fishing industry for its guts in wanting to stand on its own feet much more than the farming industry desires to do.
He went on:
The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industries. If we did that we would get competition

working in both industries and the nation would get better value because the nation has been mollycoddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), campaigned on behalf of the Tory Party and took a leading part in formulating a policy which, irrespective of entry into the Common Market, would have meant the introduction of a major levy system and the imposition of import taxes on our traditional suppliers. That policy was slightly adapted by the Tory Party.
What I am saying should come as no surprise to hon. Members on the Conservative Benches because this is what they believed in and what they campaigned for. These are the promises their leaders gave and the promises which have now been shattered by events. Sometimes they have been shattered by factors outside their control—by the international situation in relation to world prices, and by matters which every Minister of Agriculture must consider. But if ever the Labour Government offered that excuse they were chided by the Conservatives.
We condemn the Government. In our short, succinct Motion we say they gave pledges which have not been fulfilled. I will not go into too much detail about the beef situation. The Minister reported to the House that this was a result of the decision by the EEC, and we must accept this. The Common Market made an alteration which inevitably had repercussions on us, attracting meat exports from this country and from our traditional supplies. When we go into the Common Market the situation might be even worse, but I will not argue about that today because some hon. Members on both sides are enamoured of the practice of the Community.
The other day we tried to expose the weaknesses of the common agricultural policy. There was a very eloquent piece of writing by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) in the Evening Standard last week strongly criticising what is happening and pleading with the Prime Minister to call a summit meeting to deal with international food prices. There could be a fall in the price of beef because the consumer will not buy it. There has been a consumer resistance—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not in the House of Commons.

Mr. Peart: I do not know about the House of Commons but from what I know about the situation outside there has been a consumer resistance.

Mr. Skinner: Just for the masses.

Mr. Peart: The consumer resistance is not only in respect of meat. The Minister of State has admitted that there has been a consumer resistance on other commodities. I have here a recent fine pamphlet published by the Trade Policy Research Centre which quotes a national food survey. The figures indicate a fall of 2·5per cent. in per capita consumption of food in the last 12 months alone.
In other words, a high food price policy inevitably creates consumer resistance, and because of this many people in this country are not eating fresh meat and not eating the better quality cuts. Their low incomes are forcing them to buy other food, and this is happening everywhere. This confirms what even the Conservatives have been saying this weekend in some of their speeches. Perhaps the Minister's decision on the suspension of customs duties on beef may help. But our weekly beef supply is running in the region of 20,000 tons. United Kingdom production in round figures is about 16,000 tons and the remaining 4,000 tons are imported. Of that we import 1,500 tons from Ireland on which duty is not paid. About 1,000 tons are imported from the Argentine. Therefore, the suspension of customs duties may not be the answer, and after a period we may swing back to a difficult situation.
On the other hand, the Minister has promised an increase in production. But inevitably when we completely embrace the CAP and when we enter the transitional stage in 1973 there will be hardships for many consumers. This is what it means when the Government pursue a high-price policy for food. This is what the Minister meant when he was in Opposition and it is what the Prime Minister meant when he was spreading his propaganda in the country. The Prime Minister believed in the virtues of competition and he has always argued that a system of competition would enable the producer and the consumer to get the benefits, and now we see how this policy has failed.
The Minister has been compelled to intervene in certain commodities and there has been on play of the market to right the situation. He had to take action on sugar, milk and potatoes, and in so doing he blew sky high the political philosophy and practice of the Prime Minister, who is wedded to the philosophy of competition.
The Minister may refer to what the Labour Administration did in relation to meat supplies but I should remind him that only recently he made an announcement about the Bacon Market Sharing understanding. It says:
…the Government has determined the total quantity required on the United Kingdom market in the 12 months beginning April 1st, 1972, as 639,570 tons, a reduction of 10,430 tons over the determination for 1971–72
There has been a reduction in the total quantity of bacon produced by this country for the United Kingdom market. [Interruption.] There was an agreement on the reduction.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The reduction was in imports of bacon.

Mr. Peart: There was a reduction or imports and it has had a repercussion elsewhere. Because of the uncertainty of the Bacon Stabiliser Administration, a system which I introduced, there has been a lack of confidence in the industry. This, linked with the reduction in our share of the British market because of the Minister's decision, has inevitably created a reduction of supplies.
I come now to the Food Manufacturers Federation. I am dealing here not with people who are necessarily sympathetic to the Opposition or who are particularly representative of the farming industry, but with people who are connected with the processing and manufacturing of food. It has issued a special report which I am sure the Minister has seen. It was published on 26th March, 1972, and said that food prices are important and that food still forms 25 per cent. of the retail price index. The index is used by the trade unions in wage bargaining. The Federation goes on to say:
Since the beginning of the C.B.I. initiative the food items index has risen faster than the index as a whole. This is due to very rapid rises in the costs of raw materials. Taking the increase in March 1972 over July 1971, the total index has risen by 3·3 per cent. but


the index for food items taken separately by 47 per cent.
It adds:
If we take the index of manufactured foods which makes up about half of the all foods index then the increase is 4·1%.
It says:
During the last 12 months the food manufacturing industry has been faced with massive increases in the costs of many of its raw materials. A few examples are beef for manufacturing purposes has risen between 10–25%, pig-meat by 28%, fish by 30–40%, milk powder by anything from 50% to 100%.
It explains that packaging costs have increased. For example, the glass required has gone up by 10 per cent. That has been a special problem facing the industry.
I do not want to give too many detailed figures, but all those factors have inevitably had repercussions on the consumer. The Food Manufacturers Federation states:
The effect on the consumer, and particularly on the lower income groups, is obviously very severe….The housewife is acutely aware of the price increases in food and adjusts her purchases accordingly. The latest evidence published by the independent research organisation, A. C. Nielsen, shows a decline in the volume of grocers' sales for the second year running.
That has had an effect on the people in the industry. Employment went down by 7 per cent, in 1971, from 770,000 to 700,000, and the FMF expects future cost increases. The 2 per cent. figure given by the Minister after he had changed his earlier figure could well be wrong. A. C. Neilsen thinks we shall face extra increases much higher than 2 per cent. For example, the industry expects very high price increases for many major raw materials in the cereals, meat and dairy sectors, including rising prices of milk for manufacturing purposes, which will lead to increases of 40–60 per cent. in butter prices and 30 per cent. in cheese prices if we embrace the common agricultural policy. The White Paper states that the figures given by the Minister are only the averages, and for many commodities in the transitional period there will be high percentage increases in prices, which will have a tremendous effect on the consumer.
Conservative Members say "But we shall make social adjustments". How-

ever, many people face hardships now, and they want adjustments not at the end of the transitional period of the CAP but now. If nothing is done there will be a tremendous outcry in the country. Even the Daily Mail said in the middle of last year
Mr. Heath, you must cut prices now".
I do not know what it will say now. It begged the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food then to
shelve his cherished plan to switch from farm support to agricultural levies on imported produce.
That is a Conservative newspaper. The cry has been repeated.
The Government stand condemned on their policies. The figures are there to be seen, and they have done nothing about them. They have let the situation slide. They have embraced a policy without asking for further safeguards. Even The Times suggested in an editorial not long ago that we should seek to renegotiate the CAP, because it could have serious repercussions on our international trade and our national position.
I ask the Minister to try to defend his policies. It is no good attacking some of us who had responsibility. He has responsibility now. I am prepared to stand by what I did in agricultural matters and compare my Price Reviews with those of the Conservative Minister whom I succeeded, who is now our ambassador in Rome—[HON. MEMBERS: "Paris."] He speaks in the spirit of the Rome Treaty. Perhaps Sir Christopher Soames will be in Rome one day. I do not know whether he will be a European Commissioner, but I wish him good luck personally. That is another matter. I do not apologise for a Labour Government's agricultural policy. I am merely saying that the views of Conservative Members have been expressed, and they must accept responsibility for policies which have created conditions leading to the present price increases. Apart from the CAP, we have had silence on the value-added tax, which I believe we shall have to have once we enter the Community.
Through their social policies the Conservative Government have had an effect on food consumption. In their first Budget in October, 1970, they ended free school milk for the over-sevens, to save


£9 million. In the same Budget the price of school meals was raised from 9p to 12p, and next April it is to be increased further to 14p, a saving of £30 million. But it means schoolchildren being denied hot meals in our schools. These policies have a divisive effect in our society.
The Consumer Council was mentioned at Question Time. It was set up by a Tory Government in 1963 on the recommendation of the Molony Committee, which was set up in 1959 and reported in 1962. Then the present Tory Government scraped it in 1970. But in their General Election propaganda they paid tribute to it. The Conservative Party campaign guide, 1970, said:
The Consumer Council has proved to be a powerful and influential spokesman for the interest of the consumer.
What do the Government say now? Why did they scrap it? I am not blaming the farmers—

Mr. Skinner: Why not?

Mr. Peart: The butchers or the farm workers because I believe it is the Government who are responsible. We are censuring the Government, not the farmers, butchers or the farm workers—[An HON. MEMBER: "They voted for the Conservatives."] Many people voted for the Conservatives, even housewives, who now realise they were deceived when they fell to the appeal of the Prime Minister.
We condemn the Government. The Prime Minister issued a false election prospectus. The "at a stroke" pledge has been destroyed by events. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food believes in high prices and entry into the CAP. He is an enthusiast, almost a Euro-fanatic. He and men like him will in the long run through their policies harm not only the food producer but the consumer and the nation.

3.58 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
'endorses the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the implementation of its election pledges to cut taxes and to stimulate investment with a view to achieving a faster sustained growth rate in the economy which will bring a real increase in living standards

for the British people, and notes that the rate of increase in food prices has been halved over the past six months, and welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to bring inflation under control'.
I welcome the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), in which he said that concern about rising prices was felt on both sides of the House. I share that concern with all my colleagues just as much as it is shared on the Opposition benches. [Interruption.] I am asked what I am doing about it. In the course of my speech I will show exactly what we are doing about it and the success which we have had in some directions in dealing with the problem.
Before coming to that matter I will suggest some of the causes for the increases in prices which have come about. Without an analysis of the causes it is not always possible to suggest remedies or see the reasons for increases in prices.
There are two main reasons why prices have risen. The first is the shortage of world supplies. That can be well illustrated by butter and cheese. For most of the sixties prices were absolutely static. In fact, the price rose quite highly in 1960 but by the end of the year had fallen right away. In 1962 we introduced butter quotas with the specific intention of holding up the price. At that time there was so much butter in the world that producers in countries such as New Zealand were unable to get a return for their money, so we deliberately adopted a policy in 1962 of putting on quotas to hold butter prices steady. Those prices remained steady from 1966 to 1970. In 1970 prices started to go up, and in 1972 they had gone up from £330 a ton to £550 a ton. That was due to a combination of drought in the southern hemisphere and changes in farm policy in the Common Market countries. The only action available to us in the circumstances was to suspend the quotas and stimulate home production in any way possible. Of course, the latter takes time.
The same story applies to beef. In many respects the beef problem is associated with the dairy problem.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Before the Minister leaves the important matter of butter, I hope he will say a little more to the House about the present


situation as there is deep anxiety amongst consumers and in the industry. Is it not the case that butter stocks are increasing substantially and may be reaching danger level? Will he tell the House what his future policies will be regarding the reintroduction of quotas?

Mr. Prior: There is no real fear at the moment that the butter mountain in the Common Market countries will reappear. Stocks are up because of a favourable spring and more milk has been turned into butter. On the whole, although prices are now down—I will say more about that a little later—there are no signs of returning to the situation which prevailed in the mid- or late 1960s. There is absolutely no justification for the reimposition of quotas. However, the Government are continually watching the situation and will take action if necessary.
Beef poses exactly the same problem. Beef consumption throughout the world has been rising at a far faster rate than beef production. In many respects butter and beef are tied together. The cut-back in dairy produce in Europe from 1969 to 1971 also resulted in a cut-back in beef production. We must remember that 70 per cent. of all the beef consumed comes from the dairy herd. For example, in Italy in the five years from 1965 to 1970 the consumption of beef went up from 35 1b. to 52 1b. per head per year. Looking at our own figures, there was a decline in imports from 340,000 tons in 1969 to 250,000 tons last year.
The pressures of demand by countries such as Italy have forced up the price enormously. For example, imported chilled chuck from the Argentine has gone up in price by 35 per cent. in the past two years.
Imports mainly for direct consumption, over which we have no control, have gone up in price by 25 per cent. since the General Election. Half of that was in the last year, but only 3·6 per cent. was in the last six months. We now have greater stability than we have had for the past two years. However, one lesson which we have to learn is to be less dependent on imports and thus less dependent on the wide fluctuations which can take place in the rest of the

world. That means a bigger rôle for home production.
Any Minister of Agriculture has to keep a balance between the stability which agriculture requires and the need for reasonable prices for the consumer. The right hon. Member for Workington, in quoting one of my speeches—he had to go back to 1966 to find it—must recognise that in 1966 agriculture was beginning to feel the pinch because of the low prices and the inability of the Government to provide the cash which the industry needed. Confidence was sinking and, as a result, production did not maintain its previous rate. I shall have a little more to say about that later.

Mr. Peart: When the Minister returns to that matter, will he tell us whether he now believes in that philosophy? After all, the Prime Minister does. It was the essence of the "lame-duck" theory.

Mr. Prior: I will try to show the House in a factual way what has happened about imports and world prices.
I turn now to the second main cause of price increases—inflation, and wage push inflation at that. There is a direct relationship between price and wage increases. That was the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) was making in his speech over the weekend. My hon. Friend has plenty of evidence to support him. He has that well-known statement that one man's wage increase is another man's pries increase. We all remember that. I accept what my hon. Friend was saying. So, of course, does the right hon. Member for Workington, who once said:
We cannot go back to the previous ways, of wages and prices continually bidding each other up, making our economy uncompetitive and creating social injustice to those unable to keep up in the race.
I absolutely agree with that. That was one of the most sensible statements the right hon. Gentleman ever made.

Mr. Peart: Not the only one.

Mr. Prior: There is no doubt that a substantial part of the increases we have suffered in the last two years is directly or indirectly attributable to wage increases.

Mr. Skinner: What about the £15 a week for the agricultural workers?

Mr. Prior: I will come to the agricultural workers. Time and again, the impact of wage costs, whether direct, as in manufacturing, or indirect, as in transport and distribution, or general, such as the cost of tin-plate, power, etc., is said by manufacturers to be the main cause of their increases.

Mr. Peart: Meat prices?

Mr. Prior: Over the last two years earnings have gone up at a faster rate than food prices or prices generally. During the last year earnings went up by approximately 5 per cent. whereas all items in the cost-of-living index went up by 2·3 per cent. and food prices by 1·1 per cent. So it cannot be argued that wages have to go up to meet the increases in the price of food. At the moment there is no justification for that.
We have taken action to reduce taxation. Purchase tax on food items has been cut from 22 per cent. to18 per cent. I contrast that with what happened when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. They put up the purchase tax on items of food subject to such tax. We have halved selective employment tax and will abolish it next April. That again is in stark contrast to their record when they were in office. The abolition of selective employment tax next April will mean at least £25 million to the food industry. We have cut income tax on three occasions, once a direct cut and twice on the allowances. We put £1 in everyone's pocket from April this year. We have cut corporation tax from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent. We are giving greater incentives to investment, and, thank heavens, profits in the food industry are also getting back to more realistic levels. The importance of that is very simply that unless we get more investment in our food manufacturing industry our competitiveness both at home and in Europe will suffer. So I regard that as being a very important sign indeed, and a good sign for the future. I believe that manufacturers have done extraordinarily well in the past two years to keep their prices down as much as they have.
Now I come to the second series of actions which we have taken. This relates, of course, to safeguarding those who are not paying taxes and those who

are on pensions or low incomes. We have given a guarantee that the old-age pension will go up each year by at least as much as any increase in the cost of living. No Government have ever given that before, and we should take credit for it.
We introduced the family income supplement, an aid for 80,000 families and we have increased it this April so that a family qualifying with one child will get an extra £1.
If we look at the figures over the period since November, 1969, we find that the increase in the food index is 26 per cent. When the pension goes up next October it will have gone up by 35 per cent., so there will be a considerable increase in the value of the pension.
Coming to the lower income groups, there is a willingness to be sympathetic towards them but also the need for co-operation by the unions to make sure that additional increases here are not matched by similar increases right through the whole wage structure. This brings me straight to the agricultural worker. For sheer blatant hypocrisy, the early day Motion put down by hon. Members opposite is about the worst example even this Opposition can drag up. Hon. Members should talk to agricultural workers and hear what they have to say, and talk to the unions and hear what they say about that Motion. In the six years that the Labour Government were in charge they twice referred proposals of the Agricultural Wages Board to the Prices and Incomes Board. They were not even prepared to accept the Agricultural Wages Board at that stage, but at other times they allowed the board to work normally.
In the six years of Labour Government agricultural wages went up by 38 per cent. and food prices by 31·1 per cent., and the differential between the real increase and the food increase was 22 per cent. of the rise in food prices. In our two years wages have gone up 23 per cent. at a time when food prices have gone up 17·4 per cent., a differential of 32 per cent. So I hope very much that hon. Gentlemen will keep quiet about their record as regards the agricultural worker when they were in office.

Mr. George Wallace: It is your record we are worrying about.

Mr Prior: Our record is considerably better, and the Opposition have every right to be worried about it.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Prior: I am always giving way, but I am not giving way any more.
To move on to the further action that we have taken, we have suspended the butter and cheese quotas, we have suspended the tariff on imported beef, we have taken direct action to contain the rise in sugar prices—caused mainly, I might say, by the additional commitment we made last autumn in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That was the first increase given to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement countries for many years, in fact since 1965, and it just does not add up for the Opposition to make all this fuss about help to the underdeveloped countries and the sanctity of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement when this Government has actually done something about it and they did nothing the whole time they were in office.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Would the right hon. Gentleman now repeat the assurance he gave us at Question Time that the Common Market countries have accepted the Lancaster House Agreement?

Mr. Prior: We are going to debate the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement tomorrow and I will wait until then to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer to the questions he has asked. The hon. Gentleman seems to know the answers an way, so I do not know why we bother to give them to him.
We have reduced the price of milk and cut down the price of potatoes by allowing the deficiency payment to stabilise prices this spring.
Those are some of the measures that we have taken. We have also done something more. We have brought about a return to confidence in our agricultural industry. From 1964–65 to 1969–70 there was a 5 per cent. increase in the net product of the industry. We are now confident that the industry is going to grow by not less than 4 per cent. a year as opposed to 5 per cent. in five years—more in one year than in nearly the whole of the term of office of the party opposite. Butter production is up by 20 per cent.; cheese by 36,000 tons—very nearly 20

per cent.; beef will be up next year by at least 50,000 tons compared with this year. This really is the best possible protection for the housewife and the best possible deal for the country.
What is the result of the actions we have taken? The best guide to what has happened is the food price index. Hon. Gentlemen like to use it when it produces figures which support their arguments, and they must accept it, too, when it tells a different story from the one they wish. The latest food index figures confirm that food prices are rising much more slowly. The annual rate of increase has fallen from 11·1 per cent. in March to 6·4 per cent. in May. Compared to the position last December the annual rate of increase has been halved. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but of course they will know, or ought to know, that in the past six months the food index figure has risen considerably less fast than it did in the six months before the General Election, so I hope they will laugh that one off. Prices are still rising, of course, but they are rising much more slowly, significantly more slowly, than in the period before the General Election.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Prior: No, I will not give way. A year ago when we had a similar debate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) made much of the figures produced by the Eastern Evening News, I think it was. He has been considerably quieter this summer than he was last summer, and perhaps this is because the last figures that we had showed that there had been a fall from December, 1971, to May, 1972.

Mr. Wallace: I am certainly agreeable to the figures given, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that drop was entirely due to the large drop in the price of apples? That is enough to give him the pip.

Mr. Prior: It is very difficult to deal with specious arguments, but the fact is that there was a fall and the hon. Gentleman has been much quieter ever since.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like accepting the food index, as they do not always when prices are down, perhaps


they will take someone else's figures instead, those provided by one of the leading retailers in the country. His weighted figures show an increase from May, 1971, to May, 1972, of just under 5 per cent. Those figures compare with the figure for the year June, 1970, to June, 1971, of just over 11 per cent. So we are finding that the lower figures produced by the food price index are backed up by other people's experience. Again, there is a much greater awareness by housewives of price increases and whether they can get good value for money. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen seem to find that extremely funny, but it happens to be true. The National Food Survey figures show that housewives make better purchases than would be expected from the weighted averages of the food index. The weekly expenditure on food per head of the population shows an increase in the first quarter of 1972 over 1971 of 3p per week per person—that is, 1 ·3 per cent.—at a lime when the food index is up by 4·1 per cent.
There is no doubt that the publicity from this House and through the national Press has done much to make the house wives a good deal more conscious of getting value for money than they were before. The national Press is very often sensational, but not always very accurate. It produces almost regular weekly charts and clocks, but they are not really properly weighted. I suggest that if the national Press would put its own clocks next to the food price index clock, and perhaps the National Food Survey clock showing household expenditure on food, its readers would have a much better comparison.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Prior: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The fact is that when prices go up that is sensational news, but when they go down the downward move is forgotten. We all know that beef prices went up. Do we all know that they are coming down again? Do we know that butter is 2p to 3p a 1b. cheaper than it was a month ago? Do we know that eggs are 4½ per dozen cheaper than they were a year ago? Do we know that poultry meat is 2p cheaper per lb. than it was a year ago? Do we know that coffee,

margarine and other goods are cheaper than they were a year ago?
Although these are marked improvements, much more needs to be done before inflation is brought under control. The seeds of inflation were sown some years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition do not like hearing this. I remember when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) introduced his Budget of 1969. He threw prices and incomes policy out of the window and said "We will have an industrial relations Bill instead." At the end, we got neither. That was the real start of the scale of the problems we have suffered ever since.
Many remedies have been tried, from income and price freezes to pay pauses and so on. All have had their difficulties and problems and some have resulted in a far worse position than they were introduced to solve. A free society and unfettered wage bargaining impose on all the responsibility to act in a fair manner, not to use monopoly power to extract more in prices or wages than the economy as a whole can stand. It is a matter not only for the Government but for all sections of the community. The Government will play their part but will expect others to do likewise.
What do the Opposition do in this situation? They support every wage claim, however inflationary; they undermine producers' confidence by demanding non-existent cheap imports; they condemn the common agricultural policy which they once accepted that we would have to support; they rejoice in every price increase and weep over every fall. Finally, they censure us for a record on food prices which in the last six months has been much better than their own. For them to rebuke us is like Satan rebuking sin.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: Although it is headed "Food Prices", and although the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) introduced the debate as one on food prices—and with him and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food facing each other one would expect a debate on food prices, which we have had so far—the Motion does not actually mention food prices. It


refers in its terms to rising prices generally. Indeed, one cannot entirely confine one's remarks to food prices when one is dealing with inflation, as one must, as a whole.
We have heard from the right hon. Member for Workington a history of what happened under the last two years of Conservative Government. We have heard just as detailed a history from the Minister of what happened in the six years of Labour Government. Nothing perhaps is more calculated to bring out the hypocrisy and humbug in politicians than the mere mention of food prices. Whatever statistics are quoted and swapped across the Floor of the House, or in the national Press, or on party platforms, the public know that inflation is always with us, that whatever party is in power it is with us, and that prices have risen faster and faster and faster under successive Labour and Conservative Governments.
If one takes the £ as being 100 in November, 1964, it was worth only 71p in June, 1970. Taking the £ note itself to describe that decline, if one cuts down between the "B" and the "A" of "BANK OF ENGLAND", one is left in June, 1970, with a very small part after six years of Labour Government. If one takes the full £ note of June, 1970, and cuts down the stroke of the "B" in "BANK OF ENGLAND", one sees what is left now.
Let us look back to 1964 and study the record of both Governments. The £ is now worth 66p of what it was in November, 1964. In other words, it has lost one-third of its value in the last eight years under both Labour and Conservative Governments. That cut of one-third on the note itself brings us to the "I" in
I Promise to pay the Bearer on Demand the sum of…
We are still left at least with those words, but one wonders what will happen when they disappear.
Only last week I tried to change a £ note, which has been mutilated, given to me in change, and I was informed by the bank that it could not change a bank note that did not bear the words:
I Promise to pay the Bearer on Demand the sum of One Pound".

It will take only a few more months of the right hon. Gentleman before that has disappeared.
This is an interesting statistical problem which can be set for children in maths classes. Housewives know only too well—and more tears are wept over the plight of housewives and prices in this House than on almost any other subject—that this is a problem which has been with us year in and year out. The cutting of the £ note in this way serves only to illustrate the national problem and the publics' awareness of price increases.
The public are only too well aware of politicians' hypocrisy on this subject. Only last weekend we had the Prime Minister accusing the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) of selling Britain short, accusing them of having caused the floating of the £, the virtual devaluation of the £. That, coming from a Prime Minister who, when he was Leader of the Opposition, spent his time charging around the length and breadth of Britain endeavouring to devalue the £ with his own words is an extraordinarily hypocritical exercise.
It was reported in our newspapers this morning that over the weekend the Leader of the Opposition had assured the housewives of Carmarthen that the Government's devaluation would lead to higher prices. That, coming from the right hon. Gentleman who talked about the £ in the pocket and tried to assure everyone that devaluation did not mean higher prices, was again an extraordinary exercise in hypocrisy.
The right hon. Member for Workington accused the Government of accepting a high-price policy inherent in our entry to Europe. This is a charge which all of us who support entry into Europe have to answer. But it is a strange piece of humbug from someone who remained a member of a Government which were anxiously endeavouring to join Europe on terms which would undoubtedly have meant that we would have had to accept the high-price policy inherent in the present common agricultural policy.
What I want to do is to say a few words about how I see the problem of prices, why prices rise—and they do not all rise for the same reasons—to try to separate


the problem from the Mumbo Jumbo of party points and to try to put forward one of two constructive ideas to deal with this problem, which has baffled all Governments, and more than most this and their immediate predecessors. Not all prices rise for the same reason. There is the simple question of supply and demand, whether seasonal or permanent, there are manufacturing costs, import prices, wages and incomes, monopolies and restrictive practices and distribution costs. Food prices are less than all other prices are subject to all these factors and to several other lesser factors.
We heard the Minister of Agriculture telling us what has happened to fish prices. We heard it also from the right hon. Member for Workington. No one can say that the price of fish has risen because of high wages or necessarily because of lack of competition. The fact is that there has been a world-wide shortage of protein. That has served to keep the demand for protein high. Fish has acted to a certain extent as a substitute and we have had bad fishing conditions in the North Sea. These were forecast two or three years ago, as is possible with fish because of their complicated life cycle, which can be forecast in the waters around the world. But the increase in the price of fish has little to do with our entry into Europe. It may well have in future, when we come to be subject to the European fisheries policy, but I would suggest to the Opposition that the future price of fish is likely to be affected more by the agreement we reach with Iceland than with any policy to do with our entry into the EEC.
There is the problem of beef. We have seen beef going up and going down, not unfortunately down enough yet, but one lives in hope. There is a long-term cycle in beef, and there is a need for long-term confidence to lay down the capital and increase the output. There has been the problem of world supply. Argentine supply has been low. The EEC had to try to get rid of its butter surplus which, I agree, came about as a result of a pretty mad common agricultural policy. Any of us who advocate entry into Europe have to accept this. It was a crazy way to run the farms of of the EEC.

Mr. Skinner: Why support it?

Mr. Pardoe: If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene in my speech from a standing position he is welcome to do so. Before he does so may I point out that his interventions are not generally enormously helpful, either to his own side or to common sense.

Mr. Skinner: Harold Lever has done all that before.

Mr. Pardoe: Clearly, this is not an intervention.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me?

Mr. Pardoe: Yes.

Mr. Swain: I am fairly constructive at times, although I might destroy the Liberal Party. Is the hon. Gentleman criticising the common agricultural policy, having had the audacity to go through the Lobby in support of it last week?

Mr. Pardoe: If the hon. Gentleman had been here when I spoke in that debate before the guillotine fell—

Mr. Swain: I was.

Mr. Pardoe: —he would have heard me say that I regarded the European Bill as a package, and in that sense our legislation as much as anyone else's. There has been the cry that we should ban beef exports. It is no longer heard on every side now because the situation has to some extent righted itself. I can only say—and I have said this in my constituency and to those who have written to me in this manner—that if we were to ban exports of beef the only consequence would be for demand for beef on the continent to rise and high prices would be charged by those now supplying our market. There would be a simple switching operation and the price would rise here. It is nothing like as simple as that.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am not an agricultural expert, but I have heard this argument many times. If it is the case that supplies would simply be obtained from other sources, why was the tariff taken off by the EEC?

Mr. Pardoe: There is no question at all that supplies could switch. It is not


always easy for them to do so. There are long-term agreements and habits built in. One knows only too well that shipping companies deliver to the port where there is the habit of delivery. These things change when prices change, and there is no doubt that in the long term this switching operation would have come about, and was already happening to a certain extent.
As for lamb, confidence in the farming industry has declined. The flock declined over a long period, and I do not blame this Government for that. But I blame the Government for the pig meat situation. There is no doubt at all that there has been a sharp down-turn in the breeding herd. It happened last year because of the 1971 Price Review. I was grateful to the Minister for Agriculture, who, when I intervened during his announcement of this year's Price Review, said that as usual I knew more than the NFU. I was grateful for that bolstering of confidence in my farming acumen, and I can only add that as a result of my discussions with my constituents I have discovered the opinion is shared by most of my farmers. I believe the Government have been blameworthy over the pig meat situation. It is beginning to ease, and I hope that it will ease much more rapidly in future. That largely comes about as a result of the 1971 Price Review—

Mr. Prior: I must point out that the pig cycle reached its peak in 1970 and the early part of 1971. With a pig cycle there is a considerable trough following the peak. This time we have got away with a 3 per cent. fall, which is very good indeed, and it is now rising again.

Mr. Pardoe: This is intensive farming with a vengeance—we now have pigs cycling to the trough! I accept to a certain extent what the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is not the view of the NFU, which is as critical of his policy as we have been.
Prices have not risen because of high farm incomes. That must be said immediately. Consumer expenditure on food amounts to about £8,000 million a year, and the fanning industry's net profit is only about one-seventh of this at £1,150 million a year. Farmers' incomes are not a vast

part of the total consumer expenditure on food. Much more important in looking at food prices are things like distribution costs, import prices of foodstuffs, manufacturing and processing costs and margins.
Here I would raise a point about bread. It is a point which came up at Question Time with the Minister himself when I asked him last week what percentage of the total break baked in this country was baked by the top three bakery combines. He said it was between 75 and 80 per cent. One can look at this two ways. One can say either these very large bakery combines are artificially keeping the price high or that they are artificially keeping the price low to force other bakeries out of business. Both points have been made in the Press and elsewhere in the last few weeks. To my way of thinking neither is a particularly reputable approach to a market economy.
I think the Minister had better concentrate a little of his fire on bread prices and bakery prices particularly. No one can suggest that wage levels in bakeries are causing high bread prices. The Minister might wish to suggest it, but no one can suggest it. The staff working in bakeries are not by any manner of means among the highest paid in this country, nor have their increases been very rapid. It would be very difficult for the Government to try to show wages to be the cause of these inordinately high and staggering increases in prices. They are staggering increases. The price of the standard loaf rose under the Labour Government by 3p. It has risen by 4p a loaf under the Conservative Government. Those pence are new pence. That is a lot of money. These are pretty staggering increases, and it is highly likely that these increases will continue.
As I said at the beginning, this debate is not only about food prices, because the Motion talks of strongly condemning the Government
for their utter failure to control rising prices, in total breach of their election pledges to the British people.
This debate is taking place under the shadow of the decision to float the £, and there is no doubt at all that higher prices have caused that decision. Whatever the Cabinet decided on Thursday


last week, they had changed their minds by Friday, and there is no reason to doubt that the major factor in forcing the Government to float the £ was rising prices.
They would not have forced me to float because my hon. Friends and I would never have fixed, but the Government went out on a limb last December when they decided on a new parity which was a revaluation of the £against 32 or 34 other currencies in the world. I maintained at that time that that act was an act of economic madness, and I told the Chancellor that he would not be able to maintain that parity because of the rise in prices which would take place. It happened at a time when British prices were rising, and had risen, over a long period of time, faster than those of our major competitors. This has continued, and the Government were faced last week with a situation in which the value of the £ was untenable.
I know that we have had denials, and that we have had them from the Government this week and on Friday, and that the statement that the decision was forced by a purely technical situation, and that it had nothing to do with the real competitiveness of the £ or the real problem of British inflation. All that is absolute nonsense. The competitive position of British industry was actually worse at the beginning of this year than it was before devaluation in 1967, and the rot was increasing all the time. Two or three weeks ago we had a forecast by the National Institute for Economic Affairs that the trade deficit in just six months of this year would be £142 million. Only six days later we had actual figures from the Department of Trade and Industry showing that in the first five months of this year the deficit had already gone over £200 million. So the pace of things was overtaking the forecasters day by day and week by week.
The Conservative Party at the last General Election, as, indeed, when it was in Opposition, committed itself against a prices and incomes policy, and it castigated the Labour Government back in 1967 and 1968 for attempting to introduce a prices and incomes policy. It castigated the Liberal Party for supporting the Labour Government, against many of its own elements. Indeed, the Conservative Party at the time was suggesting a vote on prices and incomes.
The position of my party has remained clear. We cannot have in this country full employment without stable prices, without a statutory prices and incomes policy. My right hon. Friend said that, following devaluation in 1967. We made it clear that we would support all the way along the line a prices and incomes policy which would ensure that devaluation worked and that any benefit from it would not be just frittered away.
It has been frittered away—not just by the Conservative Government; it was frittered away by the Labour Government as well—by the catastrophic failure to mount a credible incomes policy with sanctions behind it and the full force of law behind it. Are this Government going to throw overboard the commitment which they made on this question, for political reasons, before the last general election, or are they going to give us a statutory prices and incomes policy? Now, I am afraid, because they have left it late in the day, they will have a prices and incomes freeze and a dividends freeze as well. Unless they do, this devaluation—because that is what it is—will be frittered away in higher food prices, higher wages and dividends, as the last one was. This is the point about floating the £. It simply comes as an excuse for anarchy with the smell of the Weimar Republic about it.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: It was a pleasant change to hear from that side of the House a speech which made an attempt to be constructive in a debate of this variety. I thought that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was, perhaps, right in referring to the fact that debates on food prices tend to bring out hypocrisy among politicians, but I thought he would have been a little more effective if he had not spoiled his speech by such inaccuracies as there were in his references to the breeding herd. The fact of the matter is, as the latest returns show, there has been a very considerable increase in the dairy breeding herd as well as in the breeding herd.
I understood that this debate was to be a great attack upon Government policy and that there would, perhaps, be a very nasty speech by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. But the speech by


the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was made very nicely. The right hon. Gentleman is much too nice ever to be really nasty but, in that respect, no doubt the balance will be redressed in the winding up speech.

Mr. Buchan: I will do my best.

Mr. Morrison: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an egalitarian, and I thought that as he was one insult ahead I had better put one in now.
The right hon. Member for Workington said—I think I quote him accurately—that this was one of the most important debates of the Session. I do not think that that view can be wholly shared by his collagues on his own back benches because the number there have varied, by my count, between 17 and 27.

Mr. Skinner: What about the numbers on the hon. Member's side—

Mr. Morrison: It is the hon. Member's side of the House which is meant to be making the attck.
The right hon. Gentleman said that food prices had gone up. He said that in 20 or 30 different ways, and in doing so was doing no more than stating the obvious. But he did not say why they had gone up or what he thought the Labour Party would do about it. He did not say why because he knows full well that his supporters only too often support the causes of the inflation which has sent up food prices. He said that the Conservative Government wanted dear food and that they had introduced a dear food policy. Far from that being so, the changes in policy being introduced by the Government are no more than a recognition of the changing world food supply situation.
The right hon. Gentleman could not resist a little scaremongering about the effect on food prices of our going into the Community. He ignored the fact that pensions are to be increased annually and he also ignored paragraph 90 of the White Paper, "The United Kingdom and the European Communities", which refers to social benefits being increased for those who need them.

Mr. Peart: I was not scaremongering. I was merely repeating the arguments in

the Government White Paper. There is, on the new figures, to be an increase of 2 per cent. a year. The White Paper says 2½ per cent. The Food Manufacturers Federation says there may be greater increases here and there. I am not scaremongering; I am merely repeating what is in the Government's White Paper.

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the important point is that the increase in food prices attributable to entry into the Common Market is estimated at only 2 per cent., which means ½ per cent. per annum in the cost-of-living index?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he believed that we should have a value added tax when we went into the Community. Someone might have told him that we are introducing VAT now and that we shall have VAT whether we are in or out of the Community.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to some of the factors which affect food prices. I suppose that the prime factor in the minds of most people is the price which the farmer receives for his product. The agricultural industry's net product after deducting from gross output the cost of purchases from other industries is about £1,150 million; that is to say, about one-seventh of the food expenditure by consumers, which totals £8,000 million annually, is expenditure on home-produced and imported food. Therefore, six-sevenths of the food price paid by the customer arises from factors additional to the price of the home-produced raw material. Thus the price to the farmer has only a fractional effect upon prices.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture mentioned other factors of which the first in my opinion, although it is the second in his, is labour cost. The Opposition must remember that it is their own irresponsible attitude to out-landish wage claims which only too often has caused costs to spiral. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, earnings have been going ahead of prices.
It is important to emphasise the effect of world prices on the price of home food. It is encouraging that the price of butter has fallen. I reply to a Parliamentary Question on 5th June, my right


hon. Friend said that butter had fallen by between £30 and £57 per ton. Retail prices are now reflecting this fall.
I have no doubt that the price of beef in this country will be increasingly affected by world demand. We know that Europe is short of 600,000 tons of beef. Although Europe is taking action to stimulate the production of beef, it will be a considerable time before it is able to meet its own requirements—possibly never. In the Argentine the population have one meatless day a week and therefore the potential for imports from the Argentine to Europe and to this country is limited. We know that the demand for red meat will increase as the world-wide standard of living improves and as the population increases.
Therefore, one of the main hopes of counteracting the world-wide beef shortage is the stimulation of home production. This has been done, and I believe that we shall see a steady improvement in home supplies even though in the short term the improvement may seem to be delayed. The reason is that many farmers will wish to retain on their farms to build up their breeding stock animals which previously would have been slaughtered as calves.
In addition to labour costs and world-wide factors, seasonal factors should not be forgotten. Undoubtedly the seasonal factor, coupled with the world price, is one of the causes of the sharp increase in beef prices. In this cold, miserable and damp year some beef has not been finished as early as it would have been otherwise. All these factors must be taken into consideration when thinking about food prices.
No one claims that the food price situation is wholly satisfactory—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Without going into party politics, I think it is agreed that, for whatever reason, food prices have gone up and because of the floating of the £are likely to go up further. The people who will be most adversely affected are the old-age pensioners, who will not get an increase in their pensions until October, when they will get 75p. Yet the Government are to give an 18 per cent. increase, retrospective to last January, to people who are earning £20,000 and £25,000 a year. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Gov-

ernment should give an immediate increase to old-age pensioners?

Mr. Morrison: I would hardly put the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on the cross benches as a result of that intervention. We are not in this debate talking about increases which have been given to certain individuals. I will touch on pensions in a moment.
The trend on rising prices is now in the right direction, and I believe that it will continue in that way. It is encouraging that the rate of increases of food prices over the last six months shows an improvement over the previous six months and the six months before, and also a sharp improvement compared with the last six months under the Labour Government. That is not entirely surprising when one considers the actions which the Government have taken. The list of actions is impressive. It includes the reduction of purchase tax, the halving of selective employment tax prior to its abolition, cuts in income tax and corporation tax, and the granting of family income supplements and the pension increases to which my right hon. Friend referred, which will take account not only of price increases which have already occurred but of any future increases which might occur.
My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his action on 8th March in cutting the price of milk in the summer months. One hopes it will be possible to maintain the lower price for slightly longer than the original announcement envisaged. It was also encouraging that he was able to reduce the sugar price and to stabilise the price of potatoes. In addition, on 5th June he suspended import duty on fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal and, though this is not the solution to the beef problem, it undoubtedly helps the situation. In March the increase in import duty on mutton and lamb was postponed. All these factors together will already have had a considerable effect on food prices.
I have no doubt that the stimulus given to agriculture will help to maintain a a better price level in future. The impressive list of action which has been taken to maintain price levels must be contrasted with the actions of the Labour Government. Selective employment tax alone added £50 million a year to the


cost of food. Purchase tax was increased from 15 to 22 per cent. and its coverage was also extended. The Labour Government, far from stimulating British agriculture, merely stimulated inflation. We have only to read the annual price reviews of those days to see Labour's appalling record in terms of agricultural production. I believe that, in contrast, we have had from the present Conservative Government direct action aimed at containing prices, whereas from the Labour Government we had direction to raise them.
Although the situation is by no means perfect, I believe that it is encouraging to see the improvement that is taking place. We can look to a steadily improving situation in future food prices if any action taken by the Government is now assisted by the Labour Party—whose support for inordinate wage claims unfortunately has been a characteristic of Opposition over the past two years.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I should like to echo the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a little earlier in this debate by saying, "Here we are again." The right hon. Gentleman acted almost as a political computer in streaming out statistics. But I would remind him that statistics do not always tell the right story since they can be chosen to tell a particular story. I went shopping this morning and my experience had no relation to the picture thrown up by the hon. Gentleman's statistics. Indeed my impression is that food prices are still going up.
We are today discussing a basic problem that is faced by every family in the land, and it is one of which the housewife is daily aware. It is a problem which means that for the great majority of old-age pensioners the pensions increase is wiped out before it has even been received. Hon. Members have harped on increases to old-age pensioners. I do not want to make party points, because this problem has been around for many years. I want to emphasise that only 12 months or even less after an old-age pensioner is given an increase, its value is completely wiped out.

Mr. John Loveridge: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that

the Government have taken a great step forward in having an annual review for pensioners, and does he not recognise that prices are now rising half as fast as they were six months ago?

Mr. Wallace: Then the hon. Gentleman is admitting that they are still rising. I welcome the annual review of pensions which is long overdue, but the fact remains that when the review takes place there is a time lag of almost 12 months before the pensioner gets the increase. The poor old-age pensioner never catches up with the increase in the cost of living. I have received many letters on this subject from old people, many of them apologising for the fact that they are taking up my time, and this is an attitude that is typical of old people. I have learned from that correspondence that it is no good the Minister saying that the Government have put a £ in old people's pockets, for by the time the £ gets to the pocket it quickly has to leap out again to meet increased prices, and, in the end, it is as though they have had no increase at all.
I recently had some bad news: I became a prospective constituent of the Prime Minister. The good news is that I, as a reasonable sort of person, wish to invite the Prime Minister to come shopping with my wife and me. I want us to go to the RAGS branch at Blackfen and the right hon. Gentleman will then experience the sort of shopping problems that face people every day. I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that he might end up carrying the basket.
I should like to refer to a speech made by an hon. Lady on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes). She is not present at the moment, but since my reference to her will not in any way be critical, I wish to refer to her remarks in Thetford in Norfolk last week, as reported in the Eastern Evening News. She said:
I do believe we need a Government agency which will represent the interests of consumers. Women are particularly fitted for this work.
Following that speech the hon. Lady made some more commonsense remarks which have been reported on television, and I welcome her contributions. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Lady


that on Monday, 10th May, 1971, this House carried without dissent, and against the advice of the Government, my Private Member's Motion on the price inflation of basic foods. That Motion called upon Her Majesty's Government to set up an organisation for consumer protection with powers to scrutinise and check prices of essential goods and services. In view of the Minister's remarks, there may have been some significance in the fact that in the same week Norwich City Council had the biggest Labour gains the area had ever known. So far the Government have failed to implement that decision of the House. In view of the vain attempt by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to talk out that debate, it is obvious that the Government are reluctant to change their policy. I assume that they are fully prepared to face a vote tonight, and I hope they will have the guts to do so.
It is not the slightest use the Government sitting back and blaming wage increases for their own sins of omission. Price increases for food and services are in themselves a stimulant for wage demands. Ask any worker's wife and she will soon give one the blunt facts. The Government have abandoned the cheap food policy. Yet food prices are a vital element in the pressure on wages and salaries. This pressure is bound to increase when the effect of our entry into the Common Market is felt. The worst sufferers will be the pensioners and the low wage earners.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to the Food Manufacturers Association which has recently issued a price list. I have received a copy of that price list, and it shows that it expects very high price increases for many major raw materials in the cereals, meat and dairy sectors when we enter the European Economic Community. Based on 1972–73 EEC price levels, the food industry expects by the end of the transitional period to pay between 25 and 55 per cent. extra for cereals, 20 per cent. extra for pork, 30 per cent. extra for beef and about 35 per cent. extra for full cream powder and milk. Other figures have been given by my right hon. Friend, and the trend that they show is bound to lead to a steep increase in the prices of many food items over a period of time.
We must not overlook the fact that many food items are still taxed. They were taxed by the previous Government, I admit freely, but they are still taxed by this Government and, what is more, they face a VAT rate of 10 per cent., when it comes into operation. To give only a few items, baby syrups, soft drinks, ice cream, fruit juices, potato crisps, nuts and many others, are still taxed and, apparently, face a 10 per cent. VAT.
We hear a great deal about consumer resistance. If people go off beef, what do they do? There is a resistance to beef, and people turn to an alternative. But all that happens is that the price of the alternative increases, as we have seen happening with lamb and chicken. It is a natural consequence of the events taking place. We are discussing food prices, but other items such as fuel, light, heating and transport all add up to extreme pressure on the family budget.
In such a situation, the Government not only must be involved. They must be seen to be involved. One act that the Government can put into operation is to implement the decision of the House on 10th May, 1971, and bring into their consultations representative housewives whose practical common sense and experience may prove invaluable in a critical situation.
It is all very well our talking about the housewife. She is very seldom called upon to give a practical contribution. That applies to both the main political parties and in the country generally. We could do with far more women in this House. They might wake up some Ministers. The hon. Member for Merton and Morden has pointed the way, and I regret to see that she may not be with us in the next Parliament.
Price inflation is a battle in which the weakest go to the wall. The Government talk about co-operation. Co-operation between the Government and the people is an urgent necessity. The Government must provide the means to that end. I suggest that they now put into operation the will of this House expressed on 10th May, 1971.

5.14 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: A man once said that the most sensitive nerve in the human body was the hip pocket nerve. That is a male


point of view. However, the biggest worry in the life of the average housewife is the purse and basket headache. Housewives might be forgiven for thinking sometimes that they have no friends in this House as prices go on rising, and it is no wonder that they are a little inclined to say, "A plague on both your houses."
However, the average housewife has a good deal of solid common sense. She knows what has been happening, and I am sure she will join me in expressing her disgust at the blatant hypocrisy of the Motion which has been tabled by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Opposition remind me of an arsonist rushing to put down a Motion of censure on the fire brigade. After all, who started the inflation? It was started by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Government. That is when this raging, runaway inflation began, and it is hypocrisy past belief for the Opposition now to move a Motion of censure on the Government. One sees plenty of hypocrisy in this House, but really this is quite a record.
Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave some examples of prices that had gone down—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) to laugh. Probably he never does any shopping—

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I might point out to the hon. Lady that I am the father of two small children, and my wife frequently sends me out to do the shopping at weekends.

Mrs. Knight: In that case, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman finds this such a laughing matter. If he knew anything about the daily grind of shopping he would understand the justification with which my right hon. Friend pointed to some of the prices which have come down.
Last year in Birmingham, I took photographs of a number of shops—

Mrs. Doris Fisher: Where in Birmingham?

Mrs. Knight: A number in my own constituency, but quite a lot in the hon. Lady's constituency. I did that after the cuts in indirect taxation, because many

Birmingham shops were displaying large posters in their windows pointing out the price cuts in the goods that they were selling, thanks to the Government's action. As my right hon. Friend said, no one on the Opposition side likes to mention facts of that sort. But they should not be omitted from a debate of this nature.
There are occasions in this House when Pavlov's dogs should give up and go home. Now and then certain statements produce a baying from the Opposition benches. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite shout, "At a stroke". I remind them that when the Conservative Government came into office they took action at a stroke to bring down the rate of inflation. No one with any sense imagined that that action would bring raging inflation to a halt immediately. However, there is not much sense in the heads of those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who keep up their baying. The fact was that action was taken, and we are beginning to see the results of it. We should have seen far more results if trade unionists and others had played a more responsible part in the difficulties facing us.

Mr. Buchan: I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what the hon. Lady says in general terms about people bending facts back and forth. However, in serious defence of the Prime Minister's statement she said that, after all, her right hon. Friend should be forgiven for that statement—

Mrs. Knight: I did not say that at all.

Mr. Buchan: She said that his statement should be understood—

Mrs. Knight: No, I did not.

Mr. Buchan: Then perhaps she said that his statement should not be under stood. I think that she said in terms of prices that it would be done gradually and that the Prime Minister never said that he would do it overnight—

Mrs. Knight: No.

Mr. Buchan: May I remind the hon. Lady that there are two separate parts to this question? Her defence was fair on prices, with one exception with which I hope to deal later. However, in terms


of unemployment there is no defence, because the Prime Minister's phrase was not
…to act on the increasing unemployment",
but "to bring down unemployment". There is no defence on that one. Can the hon. Lady explain that?

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my speech in my own way. I have no doubt that he will wish to do the same when he comes to make his own speech. The hon. Gentleman must not try to put words into my mouth.
I was explaining my reaction to the constant baying from the Opposition about the words "at a stroke". I went on to say that we took action at a stroke, and that is absolutely true. One action that we took at a stroke was to stop increased postage rates which were already on the stocks and which were to come into effect immediately after the 1970 General Election. That was delayed. Postage rates have gone up since, but I am most grateful, as are housewives, for that period of time when price increases were held back. Other price increases were held back by the Government, and their action at a stroke merits our gratitude and rather less of the mindless baying that comes so frequently from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Surely even the Opposition cannot object to the CBI initiative, which was taken as a result of talks with the Government. The fact that indirect taxation was cut enormously led to those price cuts about which I spoke earlier. The halving of selective employment tax and two cuts in purchase tax led to a reduction in prices and helped a great deal. It is no good talking about rising prices unless one talks about the amount of money in people's pockets which enables them to pay the prices demanded in the shops.
I watched with rueful amazement hon. Members of the Opposition laughing when my right hon. Friend reminded them that the Chancellor had given them an extra £1 a week in their pockets as a result of the cut in income tax.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Knight: No, we do not have long for the debate and I can delay no longer. That fact should be put against the demands for more money. A £1 a week cut in income tax should have meant a very great deal more restraint in wage demands than it did. The Government drew attention to the need to draw back on wage increases. What amazes me is how the Opposition keep talking as if increases in wages have no reflection in increased prices. As they have already been reminded today, they should become acquainted with the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said perfectly plainly that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase. If the Opposition do not believe that, it does no good to try to present a picture of reality to them.
One of the gravest worries of housewives at present is the way in which wage demands are being settled at amounts far higher than the 4½–5 per cent. which the Government earlier said was the norm which was necessary. I refer particularly to the rail strike. The first suggestion for a wage settlement was that the railwaymen should be given an 11 per cent. increase. The figure then rose to a 12½per cent. increase and finished at around a 14 per cent. increase. This is the core of the housewife's worry.
How can it be possible for increases of this size to be paid without an immediate reflection in still greater rises in prices? Sometimes I wonder whether Lord Denning, for instance, has considered the effect on prices of his recommendations. If he has, I feel that there could not possibly have been such a high wage settlement recommended for the railwaymen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Everything that we buy in the shops has to be transported at some time. Much is transported by road but a very great deal is transported by rail. If the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is suggesting that however high a settlement the railwaymen had won there would have been no immediate effect on prices, obviously he and I do not talk the same language.

Mr. John Mendelson: No, I was merely being helpful to the hon. Lady by warning her that if she carried on like that about Lord Denning she would need the help of the Official Solicitor quite soon.

Mrs. Knight: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for me. It is rarely shown, but much appreciated.
It is the kind of wage settlement that we saw in that case, only a week or so ago, that occasions the greatest worry at present in the minds of housewives; partly because there was a 9 per cent. increase given only last year, partly because there was no special case for it and partly because housewives feel that this will immediately give the green light to other wage settlements which would give the coil of inflation another kick upwards.
The right hon. Member for Workington spoke about school meals and said that mothers could not afford them. I remember that when he was on the Government side of the House and when the Labour Government increased the price of school meals, I—heaven help me—went on "Woman's Hour" to defend that action, which I thought absolutely right because the price of school meals was so far below the cost of providing them. I remember saying that there would be a return of the number of children taking school meals. There was a drop for a short while when mothers grumbled about the increases; but the numbers went back, as I knew they would. The simple reason was that mothers could not feed children at home as cheaply as they could be fed in the school canteen. The right hon. Member should remember that that is a very weak point on which to attack, because the Labour Government increased the price of school meals.
We can have very touching speeches about old-age pensioners and about the gap between when pension increases are announced and when they are paid. Let no one in the House think that either side has a monopoly of concern for pensioners. Exactly the same remarks were made about the time gap under the Labour Government. We were then told that administrative difficulties made it quite impossible for pension increases to be announced one week and put into pensioners' pockets the next week and that there had to be this long time lag.
It would be far better to clear from the debate subjects which are completely common to both sides. Anyone who has been on the Government side of the House knows that there are certain things

which a Government have to face and cope with. After a General Election it is no use going over to the Opposition side of the House and accusing whichever party is in Government of not doing something that the other party well knows was administratively impossible when that other party was in Government.
The housewife wonders what is to happen when the increases in railwaymen's pay reach other unions. She also wonders about the statutory incomes policy. She is fairly nervous about this because she has no trust or faith that those magic words would result in lower prices in the shops.
Finally, if the Opposition are anxious about inflation and care about rising prices, pensioners and housewives, they should use their very considerable influence with the trade unions to pull back on inflationary wage demands. Let us have one nation with everyone shouldering responsibility and no one gaining unfairly in his pocket at the expense of rising prices.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister's opening speech reminded me very much of a saying of Oscar Wilde. Asked if the first night of one of his plays had been successful, Wilde replied:
The play was a great success, but the audience was a failure.
The Minister cannot be allowed to treat British housewives as a failed audience of his policies. They have been very badly hurt by his policies. What is more, their intelligence has been insulted by the Government's long series of excuses for the right hon. Gentleman's abject failure to control prices.
I shall give him a tip. He should stop lecturing housewives upon the virtues of shopping around. They are sick and tired of having to shop around. Wherever they go, they find that prices are infinitely higher than they were two years ago. They feel deeply betrayed when they compare the Government's performance with its precepts at the last General Election. This is an anniversary month for the Minister. He has now held this present post for two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] In celebration of the anniversary, he has now notched up a record-smashing 15,000 grocery price rises. That


is the staggering total of food items that have increased in price since he became Minister two years ago. Even today, the cost of the Conservative Administration is still soaring upwards as more and more increases are announced. There has been reference in the debate to particular pledges made by the Prime Minister in his speeches at the election. But the Tory Manifesto said:
We have become resigned to the value of the £ in our pockets or purses falling by at least a shilling a year.
Since the Conservatives took office the £ has been falling in value not by a shilling a year but by 1s. 6d., or 7½p. In the last two years of the Labour Government the value of the £did fall by a shilling each year, which means that prices have been rising one and a half times as fast in the first two years of Conservative Government as in the last two years under Labour. This completely gives the lie to the Prime Minister's claim that he has cut the rate of price increases.
The Prime Minister has in fact put up the rate of price increases by 50 per cent. We have a floating £and a drifting Government. Labour spokesmen are not alone in attacking the Government on rising prices. My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), referred to the statement by the Food Manufacturers' Federation. As the Federation points out, if the Minister wishes he can reduce the food price index by 1 to 1½ per cent. immediately. He can do so by making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relive from taxation certain foods which now bear tax. It is the Federation's estimate that this would reduce the food price index by the 1 to 1½ per cent. The Federation says:
The Government can show its determination to deal with the question of the inevitable rise in food prices by abolishing purchase tax on, and including in zero rating for the purposes of VAT, all the items concerned, namely ice-cream, soft drinks, potato crisps, chocolate biscuits, sugar and chocolate confectionery, and pet foods.
It goes on to say
Removal of tax would lower the food index by 1–1½ per cent.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, and the Food Manufacturers' Federation has also emphasised, rising prices are a

matter of critical importance if the Government wish realistically to deal with the problems of inflation. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight referred to the trade unions. I hope the Minister of State will tell us, when he comes to reply, what part the trade union movement has played in the recent massive increase in beef prices? The right hon. Gentleman replied to me recently when I put a Private Notice Question to him about meat prices:
….the Government are naturally very concerned and will continue to keep the situation under close review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 33.]
What further action has been taken since that statement? Neither he nor his ministerial colleagues can say they are unaware of the seriousness of the position. I recently tabled a Question to the Leader of the House about the average price paid for beef by the Catering Sub-Committee in June, 1970, and June, 1972. In reply, I was told that for sirloin the House of Commons had to pay an increase of nearly 50 per cent. between June, 1970, and June, 1972; for top side the increase was one of about 60 per cent.; and for stewing beef there has been a price increase of about 50 per cent.
I was approached recently by a butcher in Cardiff after raising the question of who has been profiteering out of higher meat prices. In his letter, my correspondent says:
I am pleased to note that you have raised the point about profits in the meat trade. The most glaring example of this is in imported lamb, which is already in cold stores or on board ship. In the past eight weeks the prices have been as follows: 16·1p, 16·6p, 17·lp, 17·2p, 17·8p, 18·6p, 21·0p, 22·5p—an increase of 6·4p on stocks already here (or on the way). Surely this is taking advantage of the shortage of beef and means an extra £1·25 to £1·50 per lamb on top of normal profit.
I hope that the Minister of State will deal with this quesion when he replies to the debate.
We need not recall only the Prime Minister's pledge to reduce prices at a stroke and to deal with unemployment in the same way. In another speech at Leicester on 3rd June, 1970 he said:
Then there is the housewife. Her housekeeping mony doesn't stretch so far either, because she too is faced with higher food prices in the shops. The dinner money at school takes more out of her purse. Clothing the children is more and more expensive.


That was a masterpiece of deception by the Prime Minister. The electorate were given the impression that the Government were serious about acting to reduce food prices. Yet they have increased the rate of food price increases by 50 per cent. over the past two years, compared with the last two years of Labour Government. One of the Minister of Agriculture's problems is that he also is trying to succeed in misleading the people of this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington has already pointed out, the Minister has long been committed to higher food prices. He said on 29th July, 1966, when he was in opposition:
The time has come when we should have higher prices for food…for too long the nation has been mollycoddled by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
That was his policy in opposition and I submit that it is also the policy he has followed in government.

Mr. Prior: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Morris: If the Minister is very brief. As he may know, there has to be some time limit on speeches.

Mr. Prior: I am prepared to be brief. Had we had slightly higher prices then, we might well have avoided such high prices now.

Mr. Morris: The Minister has wriggled enough and he must not wriggle any more in this debate. He is on the record as having said that his policy would be one of higher food prices, and he has pursued that policy. He will not be allowed to mislead the people for much longer. He and his colleagues are gratuitously in creasing prices by the introduction of VAT, by the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill, by taxing children's clothes and by further increasing the price of school meals.
The Government's commitment to higher prices in joining the European Economic Community will not be passively accepted by the people. If the Prime Minister succeeds in steamrolling his European Communities Bill through the House, that will not be the end of the matter. In one sense, it will be only the beginning. For we shall argue to the country that they had no mandate

whatever for the Bill. We shall insist also that the definitive question must still be decided by the British people.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: We are debating the worst problem facing not only the British Government but Governments throughout the world. What concerns us today is who handles it better—the present Conservative Government or the previous Labour Government.
The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that the food manufacturers' major problem was the price of raw materials. That is so, but their price is affected by world shortages and inflation generally. Other costs, such as the overheads of packaging and transport, must also be considered, as they are important items. One of the most important items within our own control is labour costs. The Government have consistently pointed out to the country the important place in our price structure of the cost of manpower. That is said not out of spite against the unions, but because it is just one of the matters involved in the fight against inflation.
Increased cost inflation started when the Labour Government in 1969 eased their wage freeze and squeeze. Surprisingly, it has been stoked up since by the same right hon. and hon. Members who imposed that freeze and squeeze, and who today, showing signs of schizophrenia, have tabled the Motion. They have decried every increase in price but have supported every wage claim.
The Leader of the Opposition has made two statements that remain in our memory, so much so that one of them was quoted today. I refer to his statement that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase. He has also said that a week is a long time in politics. It also seems that 24 hours is a long time in politics, because no sooner did Labour right hon. and hon. Members move over to the Opposition benches than they changed their arguments entirely. They immediately supported the dockers and later the municipal workers, the power workers, the miners and the railwaymen in inflationary wage claims, all milestones on the way to inflation. Most of those claims resulted in awards which were hailed as victories for the unions,


but in fact they were disastrous for the trade unionists and their wives, who have to meet the increased prices.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that only a Government as insensitive and stupid as the present Government would, having regard to what the hon. Gentleman says about the miners and other workers, have agreed to the lavish increases for heads of nationalised industries and so on?

Mr. Kinsey: I shall deal with that point as I come to it. I possibly feel as strongly as the hon. Gentleman does on that question, but that argument does not defeat the other. If the hon. Gentleman is to be true to the one argument, he must support my argument on the wage-cost factor in inflation.
With their record, only the Opposition would have the impudence to call a debate on this topic. They have a vested interest in rising prices. They want to see them going up, because they hope to beat the Government as a result and buy off the trade unions by supporting every inflationary action they take.
Despite what the Opposition say, there is an easing of the inflationary spiral. That is the hardest point to get over to the country, because housewives tend to judge, particularly in the grocer's and butcher's shop, by the highest price prevailing. That was underlined by the recent increases in beef prices at the same time as butter prices were tending to fall. The price of beef has decreased since, but I have no doubt that the Opposition would be making great play of the fact if the increase had continued.
The prices are better reflected by the retail food price index, which has been the yardstick for both Governments' actions. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 20th June for the increase in the retail food price index between November, 1969, and May, 1972. He received the staggering answer of 26 per cent., but it was the most distorted figure the hon. Gentleman could find, because it included seven months of Socialist Government. We noted from a later answer that those seven months of Socialist Government accounted for an 8·6 per cent. increase in the cost of living. If we split the 17·4 remaining to be spread

over that period, we see that the increase was 8·7 per cent. for each 12-month period of our Government against the 8·6 per cent. in the seven months of the Socialist Government. The Socialist actions still carried through that 8·7 per cent., continuing to show in the 1971–72 index, not only through the wages effect that had been released but also through price rises held back by their squeeze and freeze policy. Those rises began to be released into the economy during 1970–71. The effects of devaluation were also an important factor.
In reply to later supplementary questions, my right hon. Friend said that between November, 1971, and May, 1972, there was a slowing down to 3·9 per cent. compared to the 1969–70 figure of 6·8 per cent. That is welcome.
The Birmingham Evening Mail recently had a report headed:
Shopping bills jump by 10% say city grocers".
It said:
A Midland housewife's average weekly grocery list has risen in price by around 10 per cent, since the end of 1969, a spokesman for the Birmingham and District Grocers' Association said today…Mr. John Hall, Grocers' Association spokesman, said: 'A rise of around 10 per cent. is probably lower than many people would have expected. This is because the grocery trade is highly competitive and many manufacturers' price rises are not passed on to the housewife'.
He is saying that by shopping around the housewife can and does save, as my right hon. Friend has so often said. It should not be said that the housewife is fed up with shopping around. She is an expert at it, and that is what many housewives want to do.
The pensioners have also been mentioned in this debate. I quote again from the Birmingham Evening Mail, but this time from its Live Letters section, where a pensioner tells how he manages to live on £8 a week. It is amazing how he does it. I do not think I could do it, because he includes in his accounts church and charity subscriptions and savings amounting to over 10s. a week.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I do not believe it.

Mr. Kinsey: I will pass the letter over to the Opposition, if hon. Gentlemen do not believe it, so that they may read it. They can write to Mr. Tuckwell of


Erdington, Birmingham, and learn how he manages to do it. It might give them some jobs in accounting and improve their chances if ever they become the Government again.
The housewife can also show how to beat price increases. She did it successfully with beef, and she should recognise the weapon which she has in her hands. We are starting to show, as the Minister pointed out, how we can bring prices down by Government action. The result could have been better had the trade unions co-operated as did the CBI. If the unions had co-operated and proved their good faith, the Government could have acted accordingly.
We have had a recital, but I will repeat the facts: SET has been halved, purchase tax has been cut twice, income tax has gone down three times and company tax has been eased. All those measures are easing the inflationary pressure and should help considerably.
I admit that we have helped to create some inflationary tendencies. We have moved in the direction in which the unions wanted us to move. We have attempted to beat unemployment, and that is still a problem, along with inflation, which we have to keep in mind.
If we look at costs in the distributive industry, as shown in the Prices and Incomes Report on the distributive trade we will see the effect of prices on the overheads of the various distributive markets. Half the costs of the wholesale grocers are wages; 43 per cent. of costs of the retail grocers are wages; two-thirds of the butchers' costs are wages; 70 per cent. of the costs of wholesale and two-thirds of the wholesale greengrocers' costs are in the wage sector. The distributive trade is affected by other labour costs, transport being the most important. The recent railway settlement will aggravate the position.
Whilst the Government action on the wages front has been right, I must deplore the announcement on Friday regarding the increases to heads of nationalised industries and judges of a further 18 per cent. I agree with the Opposition on that matter. Let us face it: it was triggered by the Boyle Report. Of course, honour must be given to the Boyle Report, because our salary increase was accepted. However, I spoke against

it in the House. It was wrong; we should have taken a lesser increase to give an example to the country. If we had done so, we could now do something about the situation. I do not accept that a statutory wage freeze is the answer. If we adopt that policy we shall get into the same problem again. Negotiations between management and men should always have in mind the end figure of the article being produced. Conciliatory action by unions on prices could be shown to work its way back into the housewives' purse.
Recent industrial strife has again reflected damagingly against the £. The floating £ is a challenge. Mr. Vic Feather questioned its effect on food prices. That point has been echoed in the House. It only underlines what we are firmly saying, that some of the inflation which we are experiencing has come from the last devaluation. The level and stability of our currency will decide further trends in that direction. If we produce a united industrial economic unit to challenge the world markets, confidence will react in our favour. That is the challenge, and the way is clearly signposted. However, we must have co-operation to beat rising industrial costs. We should never forget the lesson that led to devaluation. If the lesson is forgotten, we shall face rising food costs and further inflation, which will hit all of us.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) will forgive me if I do not comment upon what he had to say. Most of his arguments are difficult to follow and in any case I do not want to take too long.
There has been considerable chit-chat between my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about doing the shopping. I do not go shopping often, but I have done it. I am simply given a list and a shopping basket. It does not reflect well on me, but I have not noticed prices either way. However, if the hon. Member for Edgbaston says—she emphasised this strongly—that there have been decreases—the Minister and other hon. Gentlemen have quoted some of the figures—and there is still a rise of something like 4 per cent., 5 per cent. or


6 per cent., and some prices are going down, there must be a devil of a lot going up if that increase is still going on.

Mrs. Knight: rose—

Mr. Mackie: I will not give way. I am only stating a fact. The housewives were influenced by the present Prime Minister's speeches on prices. His promises were taken for granted. It is ridiculous for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to say that those statements should not have been taken seriously. There is no doubt about it. The election was won on prices and the promises that were made. If the result was not to be immediate, and if that did not mean that something was going to happen quickly regarding food prices and ordinary things which ordinary folk use, I do not know what was meant.
The Minister, the Minister of State, and the Parliamentary Secretary have known all along that this country, which buys half its food, has not a lot of control when there is a world scarcity. They have known that for years and years. Yet during our term of office the Parliamentary Secretary in particular—yes, I will wag my finger at him—and the Minister made points as to what we should be doing about it. After six years we kept prices lower, for one reason or another, than the Minister's 17·8 per cent. in two years. I have no sympathy for the Minister whatsoever for the pasting he has been given from my right hon. and hon. Friends. He thoroughly deserves it. I hope that it will make him a little more careful what he says when he is next in Opposition, which I hope will be shortly.
Beef has been mentioned a lot and it has raised the issue of prices over the last month to six weeks. The Minister claims that he is responsible for the increase in production, particularly that of beef, that is now coming onto the market. The squeeze of the late 1950s and early 1960s created a situation of short-term easy production. Producers forsook livestock production in favour of short-term cereal production because of the squeeze. One only has to look at Sir Christopher Soames's policies, and the policies before that, to see how it happened. There was also the disaster of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Some 220,000 cattle had to be slaughtered at fantastic

cost during our period of office. That had a lasting effect.
When one looks back at the last few years, particularly in the years when my right hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) and Workington (Mr. Peart) had Government responsibility, one sees the emphasis which was put on beef over those years. We all know about the length of the beef cycle. Any increase in production that is coming now is coming from our policies and not from the Minister's policies.
The Minister has an appalling habit of finishing all his arguments—no doubt my hon. Friends have noticed—by saying that the main reason for anything happening that he has not done well is what the last Government did. There must be some point when this Government become fully responsible for what is happening. I hope they will admit when that point has been reached, because we are fed up not only with Ministers, but others, over the past two years blaming the Labour Government.
A matter which is not particularly party political concerns the on-cost of beef prices between the farm gate and the housewife. Recently I received some figures which rather shocked me. I used to think we had a better distribution system than on the Continent. However, these recent figures showed that our on-costs for beef from the farm gate to the housewife were 50 per cent. plus, whereas on the Continent they were only 30 per cent. This is a big difference, 20 per cent., in the on-cost from the farm gate to the housewife. Napoleon accused us of being a nation of shop keepers. I think we are a nation of middlemen. I am not suggesting that the individual steps in the chain between the farm gate and the housewife are inefficient, but that there are too many of them, thus creating far too expensive an on-cost for food in this country.
One point made about the figures which I received was that co-operators in the EEC got their beef from the farm gate to the housewife in one step. This would appear to be where they get their saving of 20 per cent. We should consider whether we can get a better distributive performance to save some of the on-costs.
I turn now to the short-term rises in the last six weeks—I am not talking about the 178 per cent, increase over the last two years—and how they have begun to drop this last week. At the beginning of May the wholesale price of beef to the farmer per live hundredweight was £13·68. The highest figure was £15·775 a couple of weeks ago, a difference of just over £2 per live hundred-weight. I am afraid that I shall have to use old pence, because I have not yet got used to the new pence. That is 7 old pence per 1b. dead, allowing between 50 and 58 per cent. on the killing out figure. But beef in the shops rose in price by nearly 24 old pence per 1b. I saw these kind of rises quoted in several newspapers. It was not the farmers who were getting the bulk of the increase. They got the rise of £2 per hundred-weight, but the bulk of the increase went in the distributive chain which seems much too big. For example, calf prices to the beef producer, the fattening farmer, have risen 100 per cent. in the last year. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is benefiting from that increase and is spending it wisely.
As a result of the scarcity of milk, the price of milk powder has risen nearly 70 per cent. Barley has risen to the £30 mark. Therefore, it is not so profitable to be a beef farmer.
The Minister, slightly petulantly I think, often asks: "What can I do?" He could stop the export of beef. After all, the Labour Government stopped it during the foot-and-mouth epidemic. That would help. I know the Minister does not like to take what he calls physical action; he believes in the "let it rip" policy of the Government; but if he wants to help in any way he could stop the export of beef. After all, farmers have a guarantee, about which the right hon. Gentleman boasted, of £13·85 which should be sufficient, and I think the farmers will find that all right.
I wanted to raise this point in the debate on the reduction of the fertiliser subsidy of about £21 million. If that had been left with the farmers the price of milk could have been reduced. That would have helped the housewife. There is plenty the Minister can do if he really wishes to try. The right hon. Gentle-

man knows that the price of milk affects the housewife. The right hon. Gentleman could have left the £21 million to the farmers and reduced the price of milk. There are various things which the Minister can do, but, as we know only too well, he is not will to do those things.

Mr. Prior: We have reduced the price of milk.

Mr. Mackie: I left out the word "more". The price of milk could have been reduced even more. It is easy for the Minister to say that he reduced the price of milk. How did he do it? The three Ministers are present and I will tackle them all on this subject. The Minister managed to reduce the price of milk because the milk fund was increased by the enormous increases in price of cheese and butter. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman takes it from the housewife in one way and gives a little back in another. The awful thing is that he will not admit it.
The main indictment against the Government is that they made promises which they should have known they could not keep. For that reason, we shall vote for the Motion tonight.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Apart from the splendid speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), most speeches have concentrated on agriculture. As this is a subject about which I know very little indeed, I shall be able to make a short speech.
The depressing thing about the debate is that, on the one hand, we have had hon. Gentlemen opposite abusing the Government for promises or pledges alleged to have been made and hon. Members on this side saying that the real problem of rising prices stems from the action of the Labour Government; but, on the other hand, we have not had many positive suggestions on how to tackle the problem of rising prices, particularly food prices. The only suggestion which was at all constructive was of a possible freeze on prices and incomes, but experience has shown that such a freeze cannot work.
If the price of beef goes up on the international markets it is difficult to have a freeze on such prices unless the


State is prepared to go the whole way and fix every price and wage in the way that Thomas Aquinas suggested it might be done in a just society. But in an international society which is not just, it is impossible. We cannot fix prices if the prices of our imports are rising. I do not believe we can fix wages in a free society, because we know that employers find ways round a freeze, as they did on the last occasion by having bogus productivity deals, or something like that. Therefore, a freeze would not work, and most of us in our hearts know that.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend some questions on this subject. The first question concerns price increases. We have had conflicting suggestions and views by hon. Members on both sides. We have heard the suggestion that prices have risen less in the last six months than in the last six months of the Labour Government and views have been expressed about a period of two years. Indeed, many people find the price index itself very confusing. It would be helpful if a clear indication could be given, and information made available, whether the price index concentrates on what might be called basic raw foodstuffs or includes tinned and frozen foodstuffs which many people nowadays buy.
There was considerable discussion some time ago about pensioners and regional problems and producing a separate index on a regular basis for elderly people living alone and for Scotland. Has any progress been made on providing a separate price index for old-age pensioners or for Scotland? Many indications lead us to believe that the increase in prices for these two categories has been quite substantial: for Scotland because of higher basic costs, such as gas, rates and transport; and for pensioners because the full range of reduced prices in the supermarkets is not available to them.
My second question concerns beef prices. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for explaining that, because of world prices, if we seek to impose import or export restrictions now there would be a problem in that supplies might be diverted. The most worrying thing is precisely what will happen to beef prices in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison),

who knows agriculture, said that there might be a deficiency of 600,000 tons in the Common Market countries shortly. We know that in the event of our joining the Common Market there cannot be any restrictions on trading between members of the Community. What will happen to beef prices some years ahead if within the extended European Common Market we have a major shortage of beef and the prospects of increasing these supplies are limited? It has been suggested that supplies this year may increase by 50,000 tons, but clearly the time must come when increases in supplies will be very limited indeed in the European context.
I should like to put some suggestions which I hope will be helpful. First, most people accept that when decimalisation was introduced many prices were undoubtedly increased as a direct result of rounding-up. That was inevitable when we moved to a currency in which the smallest unit was the new halfpenny. Increases were inevitable with a major change like that. Many housewives are greatly concerned that if and when we move to metrication exactly the same thing will happen again. We know that under the sale of goods legislation there are certain things such as tea and coffee which have to be sold in standard quantities of 4 oz.,8 oz., 1 1b. or 2 1b. When we move over to metric units it seems inevitable that this will be a further excuse for other severe hidden price rises. Therefore, I think that at the time of the introduction of metrication there will be a very considerable need to make sure that housewives are not "taken to the cleaners" as they were when decimalisation was introduced.
As we are talking generally about prices, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can give us any indication of precisely what can be done and what is planned to protect consumers. Some people have said that there is no problem but I suggest that the majority of our people who have had experience of decimalisation do not share that view and I would like some assurance that this problem will be tackled.
My second point concerns the Government's taxation policies. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have had many reductions in taxation. These have been


welcome and at the end of the day some of them should filter through to prices. But the one thing which stands out a mile is that the most basic problem in foodstuffs is the cost of transport. It seems that in the cuts in taxation transport has been largely left out. We see in the Industry Bill which has been brought before the House that massive new incentives are being offered to industry in the development areas, but no such incentives are offered to transport. To that extent I think that more emphasis might be placed on reducing the cost of transport through tax cuts instead of on the general cuts we have had in other directions.
The other question I should like to put is this. We know that irrespective of the basic cost of foodstuffs the amount of the retail margin is very significant. We see in the shops wide variations in the costs of basic foodstuffs and we know that some items cost a great deal more in some shops than in others. In our Consumer Protection Committee of the Conservative Party we had a visit the other day from gentlemen who were great enthusiasts for hypermarkets. They pointed out that a substantial number of hypermarkets have claimed that retail prices across the board have been reduced by 8 per cent. by comparison with prices in supermarket chains and small shops. I appreciate that this is a complex subject which also involves environmental considerations, but when we look at the costs which supermarkets have to pay in the centre of our cities in rates, rents and high wages, it is clear that there must be some advantage to retail costs if one establishes a very substantial store outside a city where rents and rates are certainly lower and where basis wage costs will no doubt be lower.
When we compare the tiny number of hypermarkets in Great Britain with the number in America, France and other countries, it appears that there is certainly some built-in resistance on the part of local authorities, planning councils and indeed perhaps in the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office to such a development. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to whether the claims of hypermarkets can be backed up with facts and whether this might not have an effect in bringing down the general range of prices for consumers.

This is certainly worth considering. If the claims of those who wish to promote such markets can be backed up by facts, there would appear to be a very real argument in favour of a change in the attitude of planning councils, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office when considering applications for these major shopping centres outside our cities.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider these suggestions, in which case I shall be very grateful to him.

6.16 p.m.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: I think we are all fully aware that the Minister is a very happily married man and therefore, like the majority of husbands, must have had increased food costs brought to his attention. If he has not, he must be peculiar and unique as a husband in this country. Obviously, the close contact of a housewife with her husband must be a help even in the Minister's own home. Therefore, I wonder why we have to be subjected to pious platitudes from the Minister to the effect that prices are being stabilised when I can tell him quite clearly, along with other housewives in the Ladywood constituency which I represent, that when he makes statements of that kind he is talking out of the back of his head.
Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) I feel that the experience of decimalisation showed that in the absence of some sort of overall Government supervision, which could easily have been provided by the Prices and Incomes Board, opportunities are provided for traders to get away with general price increases against a background of public confusion. I am convinced that this happened with decimalisation—and I am not suggesting that housewives do not understand decimal currency. They understand how much an item costs, how much money to give and how much change they must receive. What they do not understand is the value of the money they have in their purses now. The Government's inflationary policy, along with decimalisation, has meant that the majority of housewives find that the money in their purse is practically valueless.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fisher: No, I will not give way because time is valuable to me.
We have metrication proceeding by stealth. Again I follow the line of the hon. Member for Cathcart in saying that there has been no adequate debate in this Chamber on metrication. Metrication will be another bombshell that will descend upon the housewife, followed by increased prices. This means more and more opportunities for consumer confusion, and it is at this stage that the housewife is deprived of all sense of her own judgment. I say that the housewife in Great Britain has good shopping judgment. When we hear the Minister and other members of the Government talking about shopping around as though it were a new, world-shattering idea that had come to them or something which the Minister himself, with the co-operation of the Tory Central Office had thought of that they must get housewives into the pattern of shopping around, this shows clearly that the Minister and the Government have no idea how the ordinary housewife lives and uses her money.
The housewife has always considered herself as the chancellor of the exchequer of the household, and because she is a good chancellor she wants to get value for her money. Every working-class housewife has always done this. It is nothing new. She tries to get the best value for money because if she does not her money does not go round from week to week. It is stupid for anybody to tell the housewife to shop around. I know what the majority of housewives say when they hear that said. But I shall not repeat it here because I feel sure that I should be ruled out of order. It is rather vulgar.
The housewife knows when she is getting value for money. When Government spokesmen say that the severe escalation in prices which they inherited from the Labour Government has been brought under control, the housewife knows that that is complete poppycock. She knows that to be so, not because she reads the Economist or the Financial Times or because she studies market values or understands the movement in the fat stock market. She knows it to be poppycock because she has a much simpler method of discovering the truth.
Almost every housewife has a shopping pattern, which means that she buys almost the same things every week. She buys what her children like, the dishes her husband fancies and those products that she is good at using in the kitchen. Her shopping pattern does not change very much from week to week. She may for a change buy a different kind of jam or different vegetables, depending on the season, but her shopping pattern remains basically the same throughout.
That being so, the housewife knows that the £5 a week which she spent in one store and £2 in another in 1970 will not now buy what she was able to buy then. She is able to make that comparison without reading any magazines or listening to the Minister. She knows that the £5 which she spends on her shopping at the Co-operative supermarket or at the corner shop now does not buy what she was able to get for the same money two years ago. What I am saying is so simple and obvious that perhaps the Minister will be able to reply when he answers the debate.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us why the housewife is now able to purchase only 24 items for her £5 as against the 33 items which she was able to buy for that money two years ago. She has to purchase these items every week because of her shopping pattern. She cannot cut down on her shopping without her family having to go without some items of food. It is no good the Minister thinking that the housewife can suddenly chop away at her food bill. There is a limit to which she can go, and she then says "This far and no further". When that state of affairs is reached she has to tell her husband that either she must cut down on her purchases or he must increase her housekeeping money. It is as simple as that.
Perhaps that is too simple for the learned Members on the Government benches to understand, but it really is as simple as that. At some stage the housewife says that she is unable to buy the goods she needs, and she therefore asks her husband for extra housekeeping money—this is a simple process which goes on in millions of homes—and it is at that stage that the husband decides that he has no alternative but to go to his trade union and ask for increased wages. I repeat that it is


a simple process indeed, If the Minister feels that he is doing sufficient to keep down prices he can blame the housewife for asking her husband for extra money, but he is not keeping down prices and nobody can blame any man for wanting to maintain the standard of living to which his family has become accustomed.
The Minister is good at apportioning blame. If he wants to put the blame on the right people, let him look at the profits flashed on the Stock Exchange List last week. He will find that two of the largest food combines increased their profits by 15p in the £ over the previous year. If the Minister wants to apportion blame for rising prices let him blame the food combines which are making such large profits.
When Government spokesmen try to explain the phenomenon of rising prices they often talk about it as the mystique of market forces. They refer to the interplay in the market between the consumer and the producer and say that this will become self-balancing. That is a view to which I do not subscribe, and if time allowed I should question closely the extent to which market forces have deliberately been manipulated. The Government's agricultural policy is manipulated against the consumer.
We sometimes hear Government spokesmen talking about competition being the consumer's best safeguard. What does competition in food mean? Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that because of the giant combines operating in the food manufacturing industry there is little or no competition, and it is hypocrisy for hon. Gentlemen on the Government side to talk about competition being the consumer's best safeguard.
The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) spoke about shops in Birmingham advertising lower prices, but what do they really mean? They are purely and simply sales promotions by big business in the food industry. One week Tesco advertises price cuts, the next week reductions are offered by Fine Fare and the following week they are offered the Co-operative supermarket, but these are purely and simply sales promotions.
In the Queen's Speech last November the Government promised to introduce

legislation to look after consumer interests, but no such Bill has been presented to Parliament. The Government stand accused of printing misleading advertisements in their election manifesto. They gave a guarantee to the consumer that they would cut prices at a stroke. That guarantee has proved worthless, and I condemn the Government for what I regard as the greatest con. trick of the decade. The women of this country were taken in by "Con. man Ted". British housewives have their own way of dealing with the trader in the market who does them down. They are waiting for the opportunity to show the man who let them down that they will not be conned again, and this they will do at the next election.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: What emerges at the end of the day's debate is that about the only thing that has come down in price in recent weeks is the value of the £.
The astonishing performance of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today in trying to defend the Government's record and his own policies in the past has not done his case very much good, and I want to talk about the right hon. Gentleman before I deal with the situation in general.
The right hon. Gentleman spent most of today, as he has done the last few months, trying to blame everyone but himself and the Government for the present situation. Every time we ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts his own policies, he acts like a Pavlovian dog and we have to remind him that his policy was clearly enunciated before he was made Minister of Agriculture. It was a policy of high prices. He said:
The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industries
The right hon. Gentleman based that statement on his view of the British people, because he said:
the nation has been mollycoddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
It is no use the right hon. Gentleman trying to defend that policy by saying that he meant only higher prices then, because today we are seeing the carrying out of precisely that policy. If the right


hon. Gentleman has not deserted that policy it seems an extraordinary coincidence that we are seeing it being carried out in the event. Perhaps we shall be told whether the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to the view that the British nation has been mollycoddled for too long on cheap food, because then we shall know what we are dealing with.
Some of the figures that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side have been throwing around today have relevance to a similar period—the situation at the end of 1967, when we devalued. Incidentally, when we devalued my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, at least went on television to make a statement to the nation, the position was put to the House and there was debate. But there has been no such discussion on this occasion and the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed himself only to be interviewed. The Government have dodged what is in effect a devaluation, although it is relevant to this debate, and theirs is a shameful attitude.
We all know which event precipitated the floating of the £. Without any doubt, it was the judgment given by Sir John Donaldson in the National Industrial Relations Court, with the suggestion that the Government were hell bent on a year of fighting with the trade unions. It was that which caused the difficulty and there is plenty of foreign evidence to show that that is so. I stress this aspect because the main Government argument in the debate has been based on the thesis that rising prices are all the fault of the trade unions.
When people complain that beef prices are going up, the Minister says "There are too many wage increases". My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) is right in saying that the time has come for the Government to accept their responsibility. Two years is a long time after the enunciation of the "at a stroke" policy. It is time that the Government accepted responsibility. It is simply not true that the only factor in increased prices at present is wages. It is not even the major factor. There is plenty of evidence to show that it is not necessarily the major factor or by any means the only factor but it possibly contributes to

one-quarter of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman has no excuse for the remaining three-quarters.
Everyone knows that there is and must be pressure on wages because of the fear which so many people have of the escalation of prices both of food and of other goods. If the Government are really serious about this matter, they have it within their power to do something at once. They have blamed the trade unions for price rises, claiming that they are beyond their own control. They have blamed price rises on foreign shortages, saying that this is beyond their control. They have blamed high prices on high foreign prices, saying that these are beyond their control. But one thing that is quite definitely within their control, because they themselves have brought it about, is the Housing Finance Bill. The biggest single contribution which the Government could make to curbing inflation would be to drop that Bill.

Mr. James Hill: It is not even law yet.

Mr. Buchan: The Government have been hell bent in Scotland and elsewhere on encouraging every council to start increasing rents from now.

Mr. William Ross: As from last May.

Mr. Buchan: Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says, they have brought in rent increases as from last May. If the Government want to make a gesture to the trade unions, the biggest single contribution they could make would be to drop the Housing Finance Bill. There is no doubt that we are suffering inflation caused by deliberate Government policy in favour of higher prices, to which their agricultural policy is geared, although some of the inflation arises, as the Daily Telegraph said today, not from speculation from outside but from the Government's mismanagement.
I want to take a look at some of the comparative figures which have been used in the debate and above all to remind the Minister of some of his own. I ask him to consider the figures for the period following devaluation in 1967. From January, 1968, to July, 1968, the food


price increase was 2·2 per cent. and from July, 1968, to January, 1969, it was 1·9 per cent. This was after a considerable devaluation. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the rise in food prices over the next six months and during the six months after that will be less or at least no more than the figures achieved after the 1967 devaluation? That will be a further test of the Government's promises. Of course, the rise should be less because the devaluation last week was less than the 1967 devaluation. I am therefore giving the Government the benefit of the doubt. But no one is rushing forward to accept that challenge on behalf of the Government, because we know that the Government's policy is dedicated to higher prices.
There was in the debate a curious defence of the Government's promises. As my hon. Friends have said, we are concerned not just with prices but also with the fact that the Government are in power on a bogus prospectus. It is no use hon. Members opposite accusing us of being hypocritical in criticising high prices because prices rose during the period of the Labour Government. We made no such promise as was made by the present Prime Minister. We are told now that he did not mean it but meant something else. We are told that he did not really mean cutting prices at a stroke but meant taking measures at a stroke which would take a long time before they paid off. We are asked "Give us time". It looks as if the policy of the time-lag has replaced the policy of "at a stroke".
What did the Prime Minister say? He said that the Conservatives would take a grip on
the price-wage spiral by acting directly to reduce prices.
He went on:
This would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices, increase production and reduce unemployment.
He did not say that it would reduce the increase in unemployment, which was what he said about prices. There is no getting away from the unemployment figures which the Government have allowed to rip up to record levels. He said that it would
increase production and reduce unemployment.

He added that
It would have an immediate effect of moderating the wage-price spiral".
There is no let-out there, despite the strenuous efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is why we criticise the Minister in particular.
How much are the Government doing about prices? The right hon. Gentleman quoted our last six months in office, from January, 1970, to July, 1970—that was what we had to look at, he said, those terrible last six months of the Labour Government. The rise then in food prices was 5·5 per cent. and it was a very bad figure, being double almost every other figure we had had. But the comparable figure a year later, from January, 1971, to July, 1971, was 7·8 per cent., 50 per cent. up. That is the record under those who were shouting at our last six months in office.
The Financial Times, that well-known Socialist newspaper—it is even printed in pink—is very worried. This is what it says:
Potato prices were mainly responsible for a 6·61 rise in the Financial Times Grocery Prices Index in mid-June….The June rise was the largest single movement since the Index was started in November, 1964. The previous 'record' was a 4·21 jump in June, 1967.
It is 50 per cent. higher than any jump we have had during our period of office and the highest jump ever. This is the reality of things. It was not connected with the question of beef; it was to do with one of the commodities about which the right hon. Gentleman boasted from the Dispatch Box two months earlier, saying that he had taken measures to deal with rising prices in milk and potatoes. He has no let-out there. Enough has, perhaps, been said about beef prices. I have seen prices quoted of over £1 a 1b. for sirloin. What a record for the right hon. Gentleman—the first Minister to let the price of beef reach £1 per lb.
In the same week beer and bread rose in price—"the three Bs", beef, bread and beer. That will be the Minister's epitaph. This is not all bad because it benefits some people. It is an ill wind that blows no one any good. The right hon. Gentleman is replacing the Welfare State with the vegetarian State. The Times of 15th June said:
The high price of beef has benefited others besides butchers. The Vegetarian Society of the


United Kingdom announced yesterday that it had been overwhelmed by requests from non-vegetarians for advice, recipes and information since meat prices started to rise.
The article goes on to say that the latest price given by the Ministry of Agriculture for home-killed rump steak was 70·3 p a 1b. but the latest price for dry nut meat was only 25p per lb. This, I am told, when mixed with vegetable juices, makes lovely rissoles or nut roast. I am beginning to see the vegetarian State developing under the right hon. Gentleman.
The next point concerns the increase in food prices because of entry to the European Economic Community. We had it again from the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison)—and I wish that he did not come from there because I am always tempted to add the rest of the limerick. There is this point about the 2 per cent. increase in food prices. It used to be 2½ per cent.; now the right hon. Gentleman has got it down to 2 per cent. We were told on Tuesday last that he did not mean that at all. There will not be a 2 per cent. increase as a result of entering the European Economic Community. He would not dare, he says, to estimate what the prices will really be.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
The official estimate of the difference between our prices and Community prices, or of adopting Community prices, is not intended as a forecast of what will happen to food prices over the next few years.
He could have fooled me. I thought that was what he meant, and so did everyone else in the country. He went on to say:
It is intended merely to show the difference which will apply each year between our prices and Community prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1972, Vol. 839, c. 224.]
Reading between the lines—we have read the White Paper—we know what it is based upon. I am suggesting that this is how people believed it and this is why we get protests from people who say that they cannot believe it is only 2 per cent. It will not be 2 per cent. Will it be 30 per cent.? Some of it will start before we enter the Common Market.
My next point deals with the effect of this upon the poor and upon pensioners. With a higher proportion of their budget being spent upon food, an increase in food prices affects them much more. No

matter at what figure the £ floats, one thing of which we can be sure is that the price of food will rise. The Government's policies are wrong. I have in my hand three-quarters of an ounce of sweets. I only wish that we had television in the House. Last year these sweets costs three old pence; this year they cost three new pence—nearly eight old pence for three-quarters of an ounce of sweets. The Government take out of the mouths of babes.
We should have a little less nonsense about people solving their own problems by shopping around, as if the aged and infirm can shop around. We should have a little less nonsense about this being entirely dependent upon consumer resistance. We found that consumer resistance to beef increased the price of lamb in some areas. Consumer resistance alone cannot help. We want a policy from the Government and if they cannot give us a policy which meets the needs of the British public, the sooner they resign the better.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): Before I reply to the debate proper may I make a personal remark about the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and say that I agree so much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said. Many of us were extremely sad when we learned not long ago that the right hon. Gentleman was far from well. The whole House is delighted to see him back in his stride again and, if I may say so, no one more than I. It is always pleasant to listen to him, if only to watch the expression of bewilderment falling upon the faces of those behind him.
I will not pay the same tribute to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) with his rather specious arguments which took him from official indices when they did not suit him to Financial Times indices when they give him better results. I have listened to every speech, and I will try to pick up the various points which have been made as I go along. I am not absolutely certain what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was driving at when he was talking about the £ note. If he was asking for the return of the


splendid old £5 note, he would have my full support.

Mr. Pardoe: Mr. Pardoe indicated dissent.

Mr. Stodart: I see that was not his intention. I am not clear what it was. As for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), I think that the whole House will respect his views on the subject of the recent award in view of the consistency with which he has held them. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) that the retail price index does have a wide coverage of foods bought in shops, including manufactured foods, canned and frozen. I will, if I may, write to my hon. Friend about the other cogent points he raised, in view of the shortage of time.
As for the comment by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) that decimalisation would have had a better effect if we had had a £ based on the ten shillings, I have to say that that was not our doing. Both my hon. Friends the Member for Devizes and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) gave lists of various tax cuts, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston in that nothing surprised me more than the gale of laughter which greeted my right hon. Friend's remarks about income tax returns. I fill in the tax deduction cards, known as P11, for my farm workers when I pay them every fortnight. I know the effect that the Chancellor's tax concession had. Before 4th May, £6·85 a fortnight was deducted. Since then it is £4·80. That is almost exactly £1 a week less in income tax alone.

Mr. William Hamilton: What is the wage?

Mr. Stodart: The point—

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Stodart: I am sorry, I have not got the time to give way. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West, was not interrupted.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are understandably anxious to shift the blame for the rise in food prices on to us, and they think that they see a

good chance of doing so when a new agricultural policy has been introduced, but the effect of the new policy has been minimal and it is not the new agricultural policy which has pushed prices of food up since well before the election. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) may recall the pressures and attacks to which he was being subjected in the weeks leading up to the election. He may even recall one of the last announcements which he made from this Dispatch Box, on 13th May,1970, when he said:
I recognise that increased costs which cannot be absorbed, including increased wages, may have to be passed on in the form of higher prices. It is important that this should be acknowledged by all concerned.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1246.]
About half an hour before that the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary—not the one with whom I have been going steady for 13 years—could claim with obvious satisfaction that in 1969 food prices rose by 5½ per cent. while wage rates rose by 10·9 per cent. That may be very nice for keeping one sweet with the wage earners who have scored out of wage awards, but it spells disaster for many others and, I feel for the nation's economy.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) who said that inflation is a battle in which the weakest go to the wall, for one cannot isolate an inflationary wage award. In these days transport touches on everything; and one must remember that the food industry today is so totally different from what it was even 10 years ago, because processing is now so widespread that, as my right hon. Friend said, an award in the steel industry has its immediate effect on things like tinned foods.
I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen will not agree with me when I say that good food is one of the most important things in the world, and if that is accepted—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Stodart: I am hoping to touch on the matter of beef in which the hon. Gentleman, obviously, will be very interested, and I cannot give way in the short time which I have.
If it is accepted as being very important, it must surely follow that it should be given fairly high priority in people's expenditure.
Having said that, I want to say how I think we can improve on what we have already done in slowing down the rate of increase. With all humility I would say that constructive suggestions how this should be done have not been exactly plentiful this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend is Minister of Agriculture and Food, and there are those who say that these duties are incompatible, as the interests of those who produce food may seem to be opposed to the interests of those who buy it. I do not think they are incompatible, because if we get the production of good, fresh food booming in this country, then that is the best thing for the consumer. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that the foods in which we are just about self-supporting are the cheapest ones. I do not believe that that is a coincidence with eggs, and poultry, and pork, and milk; and milk, in real terms, is cheaper than it was before the war. If that is not a tribute to the productivity of British agriculture, which has been contributed to by everyone connected with the industry, then I really do not know what it is.
I think it is the best thing for the economy as well. One of the first things I noticed that the Press commentators said about the floating of the £ was that as we were big importers of food we might have to pay more for it. If import prices were to rise—and it is by no means certain that in fact they will, because, for instance, the Irish Republic appears to contemplate no change in the relationship between the Irish pound and sterling, and the Danish Government are awaiting discussions with the EEC before making any decision about the relationship between the £ and the kroner—but even if it were true, how much better, surely, to grow much more food at home and be less vulnerable. As the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said, we have no control whatever over world shortage.
There is no doubt that production is booming, and there is no burning of

effigies of my right hon. Friend as befell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington; and there is no need for my right hon. Friend to call in the Special Branch on his visits to Exeter, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey had to do. As for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who was agricultural Minister in the north, we in Scotland think that we just had a very, very bad dream, and that, thank heaven, it is all over.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us of his bad dream he had that night in Cumnock we are quite prepared to listen to him, and how the Ayrshire farmers kept him there and made him nearly miss his train.

Mr. Stodart: It was not a fate half as bad as, I was informed, had befallen the right hon. Gentleman a little while before.
I could not quite understand what note the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington was trying to strike when he was opening this debate. I thought he was trying to perform the remarkable feat of playing two tunes at once, because he complained about high prices, then he complained about my right hon. Friend using the milk fund to reduce one of the prices. Perhaps my uncertainty is due to the advice which I remember receiving from the right hon. Gentleman nearly seven years ago, longer ago than the words he quoted from my right hon. Friend; words so imperishable that every generation of Members of this House should know of them. He said this in Standing Committee B:
One must be cautious. On the other hand, one must be adventurous….We must not be fuddy-duddies….If we remain put, we shall be left behind"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 21st December. 1965; c. 161.]
The House quite clearly appreciates that advice as much as I did.
I think that no Motion placed on the Order Paper by the Opposition has had a falser ring about it than this one. It is they who lit the fuse of inflation, which is responsible for so many of our difficulties today. It is we who have to deal with it, and, by means of the policies which my right hon. Friend has outlined, deal with it we shall.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 266.

Division No. 244.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Luce, R. N.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Astor, John
Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley


Batsford, Brian
Gardner, Edward
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Biffen, John
Gorst, John
Marten, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Mather, Carol


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Bray, Ronald
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Money, Ernle


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monro, Hector


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper



Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Havers, Michael
Morrison, Charles


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Murton, Oscar


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Higgins, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Normanton, Tom


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)



Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holt, Miss Mary
Onslow, Cranley


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Churchill, W. S.
Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn.Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil


Coombs, Derek
Hunt, John
Peel, John


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Critchley, Julian
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dean, Paul
Kilfedder, James
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Lord
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'te-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fidler, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Scott, Nicholas


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James




Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Warren, Kenneth


Simeons, Charles
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple, John M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wilkinson, John


Soref, Harold
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spence, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sproat, Iain
Tilney, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stainton, Keith
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Younger, Hn. George


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Stokes, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom 
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Sutcliffe, John 
Waddington, David
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Tapsell, Peter 
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)





NOES


Abse, Leo 
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edelman, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, Tom
Kinnock, Neil


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred
Lamborn, Harry


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Henry
Lamond, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Faulds, Andrew
Latham, Arthur


Barnes, Michael
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Lawson, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leonard, Dick


Bidwell, Sydney
Foley, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Forrester, John
Lipton, Marcus


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Bradley, Tom
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Garrett, W. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McBride, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Golding, John
McCartney, Hugh


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McGuire, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackie, John


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackintosh, John P.


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclennan, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William
McNamara, J. Kevin


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.) 
Hardy, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cohen, Stanley
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Coleman, Donald 
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsden, F.


Concannon, J. D. 
Hattersley, Roy
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Mayhew, Christopher


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hilton, W. S.
Meacher, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Huckfield, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward


Davies, Denzill (Llanelly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton. Itchen)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Deakins, Eric
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
Murray, Ronald King


Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ogden, Eric


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian


Dunn, James A.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Oram, Bert







Orme, Stanley
Roper, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Oswald, Thomas
Rose, Paul B.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tinn, James


Paget, R. T.
Rowlands, Ted
Tomney, Frank


Palmer, Arthur
Sandelson, Neville
Torney, Tom


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tuck, Raphael


Pardoe, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Varley, Eric G.


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, All Saints)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Sillars, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pendry, Tom
Silverman, Julius
Wallace, George


Pentland, Norman
Skinner, Dennis
Watkins, David


Perry, Ernest G.
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Prescott, John
Spearing, Nigel
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Price, William (Rugby)
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Probert, Arthur
Steel, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rankin, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Richard, Ivor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woof, Robert


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Swain, Thomas



Robertson, John (Paisley)
Taverne, Dick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 266.

Division No. 245.]
AYES
[7.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Gorst, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Coombs, Derek
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cooper, A. E.
Gray, Hamish


Astor, John
Cordle, John
Green, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Griffiths, Eldon(Bury St. Edmunds)


Awdry, Daniel
Cormack, Patrick
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Costain, A. P.
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Critchley, Julian
Gurden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Crouch, David
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bell, Ronald
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Benyon, W.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hastings, Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Dixon, Piers
Havers, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hayhoe, Barney


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Boscawen, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Heseltine, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Higgins, Terence L.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Hiley, Joseph


Bray, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Brewis, John
Emery, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fell, Anthony
Holt, Miss Mary


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter



Fidler, Michael



Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornby, Richard


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Burden, F. A.
Foster, Sir John
Hunt, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;'Nairn)
Fox, Marcus
Iremonger, T. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fry, Peter
James, David


Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Edward
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Jessel, Toby


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Churchill, W. S.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Jopling, Michael


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhart, Philip
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhew, Victor
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine




Kershaw, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Kilfedder, James
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Spence, John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Neave, Airey
Sproat, Iain


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stainton, Keith


Kinsey, J. R.
Noble Rt. Hn. Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirk, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Kitson, Timothy
Nott, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stokes, John


Lambton, Lord
Osborn, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lamont, Norman
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sutcliffe, John


Lane, David
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor,EdwardM. (G' gow, Cathcart)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Peel, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Luce, R. N.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Proudfoot, Wilfred



McGrindle, R. A.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tilney, John


McLaren, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Raison, Timothy
Trew, Peter


McMaster, Stanley
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Redmond, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maddan, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
White, Roger Gravesend)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Royle, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Moate, Roger
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Money, Ernle
Sharples, Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Worsley, Marcus


Monro Hecor
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Montgomery, Fergus
Simeons, Charles
Younger. Hn. George


More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Walter Clegg


Mudd, David
Soref, Harold
Mr. Bernard Weatherill




NOES


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Albu, Austen
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dunn, James A.


Allen, Scholefield
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Eadie, Alex


Armstrong, Ernest
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Edelman, Maurice


Ashley, Jack
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, Tom


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Fred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ewing, Henry


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Baxter, William
Cronin, John
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bishop, E. S.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Foley, Maurice


Booth, Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Foot, Michael


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Forrester, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Gilbert, Dr. John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dormand, J. D.
Golding, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Douglas Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Gourlay, Harry







Grant, George (Morpeth)
McGuire, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackie, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackintosh, John P.
Roper, John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclennan, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Rt. Hn William (Kilmarnock)


Hamling, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sandelson, Neville


Hardy, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsden, F.
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hattersley, Roy 
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mayhew, Christopher
Sillars, James


Hilton, W. S.
Meacher, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, John
Small, William


Huckfield, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey
Millan, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Steel, David


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strang, Gavin


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Swain, Thomas


John, Brynmor
Murray, Ronald King
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jone,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Oram, Bert
Tinn, James


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orme, Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Torney, Tom



Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tuck, Raphael


Kaufman, Gerald
Paget, R. T.
Urwin, T. W.


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Kerr, Russell
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Kinnock, Neil
Pardoe, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lambie, David
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamborn, Harry
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wallace, George


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Latham, Arthur
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Weitzman, David


Lawson, George
Pendry, Tom
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Perry, Ernest G.
Whitehead, Phillip


Leonard, Dick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Whitlock, William


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prescott, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lomas, Kenneth
Rankin, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Loughlin, Charles
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Woof, Robert


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. James Hamilton and.


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. James Wellbeloved


McElhone, Frank

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the implementation of its election pledges to cut taxes and to stimulate investment with a view to achieving

a faster sustained growth rate in the economy which will bring a real increase in living standards for the British people, and notes that the rate of increase in food prices has been halved over the past six months, and welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to bring inflation under control.

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL LONDON DEVELOPMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkin.]

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: We have chosen this second half of a Supply Day to discuss Piccadilly, Covent Garden and all other schemes affecting the centre of London. We have chosen it extremely fortunately, because we read in today's evening papers of yet another scheme affecting the heart of central London, Piccadilly Mark II, a scheme which differs in certain respects from its immediate predecessor in that it has 10 trees and a waterfall, but nevertheless one still based on the same unacceptable principles. What is more, like its predecessor, it has been cooked up behind locked doors between Westminster City Council and private developers, it is wholly subservient to developers' profits, and it shows not the slightest interest in the wishes of the public. We believe that it is high time that Parliament, representing the public, debated what is happening to central London.
I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House at the end of the debate partly because one or two of the proposals are sub judice at the moment, having public inquiries going on about them, and partly because some of the mistakes which have led to the present predicaments stem from decisions taken by a Labour Government and a Labour Greater London Council. Nevertheless, these various proposals—Piccadilly, Covent Garden and others that I shall mention—raise matters of national concern, of employment, of traffic policy, of housing policy, of amenity and above all matters affecting the character and personality of the heart of the national capital.
I shall not personally concentrate in detail on either Piccadilly or Covent Garden. Instead, I shall try to examine the total effect of all current plans, as far as we know them, on the character of the centre of London. I shall not do it at great length, and we shall have no wind-up speech from this side of the House because I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will be able to

intervene in the debate. I intend to make my remarks under four heads.
The first is that all the current schemes will generate additional employment in central London, especially office employment. The Covent Garden scheme will generate an extra 6,000 jobs. Piccadilly plus Artillery Mansions will generate an extra 3,000 to 4,000 office jobs. There is a proposed new development for an office block at Cambridge Circus with one and a half times the capacity of Centre Point. Then there is Mill bank where the new proposals of the Crown Estates Commissioners will result in an extra 400,000 sq. ft. of offices. There is the Hatton Garden plan, again for more offices, and so on and so on
Surely this goes wholly counter to the policy of successive Governments to disperse and decentralise office employment out of central London—ideally to the development and intermediate areas which need jobs so badly, but to the extent that that is not possible at least to chosen centres of expansion in outer London and the outer parts of the South-East region. This is precisely why the previous Conservative Administration set up the Location of Offices Bureau. though it is curious that its chairman at the moment should also be vice-chairman of Westminster City Council's planning committee. It was in order to achieve this that the Labour Government introduced the system of office development permits. This dispersal was the whole object of the strategic plan for the South-East, which has been rightly and strongly praised by the Secretary of State on many occasions. The absence of a proper dispersal policy has been the object of continuous criticism levelled at the Greater London Development Plan.
I admit freely that there are considerable practical difficulties in the way of this dispersal. I was not at all satisfied with the point that Government policy had reached when we left office in June, 1970. But surely the objectives at any rate are clear. The policy of dispersing office employment out of central London is designed both to increase the volume and variety of employment in other parts of the country with desperate unemployment problems and also to reduce and relieve the congestion, the higher densities and the commuting which a high level of


office employment in central London inevitably produces.
If we have to have more office development in central London it seems extraordinary to put it in Piccadilly, Covent Garden and Pimlico and not at the main-line London termini where British Rail would love to have it to help its ailing financial position.
So my first objection to these new plans is that they drive a coach and horses through any sensible policy for the distribution of office employment.

Mr. J. T. Price: If we want more office accommodation there is plenty at Centre Point which has stood empty for 3½ years purely to satisfy the ambitions of speculators. This is a crying scandal.

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for underlining and supporting my case so strongly.
My second objection to these plans is that Piccadilly and Covent Garden especially will both generate a significant increase in road traffic. Both positively provide for a 50 per cent. increase in road traffic over 1960 levels. This, surely, is incredible planning.
The road proposals for Piccadilly and Covent Garden are based on a road strategy which is years old and now totally obsolete. They are based on a Ministry of Transport road strategy dating back to 1963 and, I regret to say, continued by the Labour Government. The strategy is not only10 years' old. It long pre-dates the Greater London Development Plan, which indeed makes no reference to it. Paragraph 7 of the Development Plan says:
The task of planning central London's road system within the new conditions has yet to be more fully tackled and the developing structure of central London would largely depend on the secondary network throughout the area enclosed by Ringway One.
In other words, we cannot conceivably take decisions about either the Piccadilly or Covent Garden road proposals until we have the results of the GLDP inquiry.
We must have a traffic plan for the whole of central London which tells us which streets are to be mainly for road

traffic and which are to be for the pedestrians. Until we have that plan certainly we should not allow any major increase in traffic densities.
What is even more important than that is that since 1963 when the strategy was laid down we have seen a huge shift in public attitudes towards road traffic in city centres. We realise more clearly than we did a decade ago the appalling cost of a continuous increase in private road traffic in terms of noise, fumes, congestion, discomfort, the run-down of public transport and the need for more and more demolition of more and more homes to make way for the enlarged roads.
Even in terms of traffic management we now see more clearly that it does not work and that all that we do by traffic schemes is to shift the snarl-up a few miles ahead. The most dramatic recent example of that has been the effect of Westway in creating an almost continuous snarl-up in the busy rush hour period on the Edgware Road flyover. We have found time and time again that this is a self-defeating process. That is why in every city in the western world the trend is in the opposite direction. Two of the working parties set up by the Secretary of State to prepare for the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment also showed a strong trend of opinion in the opposite direction. The whole emphasis now is on priority for buses and bus-only lanes, on flat-fare and other schomes for public transport, on restraint on the private motorist and his exclusion altogether from certain streets—as the Secretary of State and I saw in Stockholm recently, particularly the street containing all the pornshops; whether that was a coincidental decision I do not know—and generally a greater emphasis on public transport.
I am glad that even the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council has now seen the light with its proposals for Oxford Street. I am particularly delighted that the Labour opposition group, likely to take power in May, has produced a radical plan for improving public transport and restraining private transport in the London area.
But the Piccadilly and Covent Garden schemes have been produced as though none of this change of opinion had


occurred. It is not surprising that Sir Richard Way, Chairman of London Transport, said of the Piccadilly scheme in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins):
The present proposals appear to reflect outdated planning concepts.
It might be worth pulling Piccadilly down—I doubt it—to make way for an up-to-date traffic plan, but it is certainly not acceptable to pull it down to make way for an outdated traffic plan.
My third objection is that many of the schemes under discussion are destroying the character and sense of community of important parts of traditional central London. Of course these are subjective matters. One either likes Piccadilly Circus as it now stands—as I happen to do, except for the traffic—or one agrees with Mr. Cubitt who said that Piccadilly Circus is
little more than a down-at-heel, neon-lit slum".
But it is not in dispute that there are strong communities which are threatened by some of these development plans, most obviously that of Covent Garden. And as to the character of central London, the majority of Londoners—if we were to ask their opinion, which we do not—would say that they do not like the change of character which these grandiose, gigantic, comprehensive development plans produce. 
We can list what we shall have more of after we have one of these schemes, and what we shall have less of after one of these schemes. After one of these schemes we invariable have less working-class housing, fewer small shops, clubs and restaurants, less variety of architectural scale, less mixture of income and occupation, fewer traditional landmarks and generally less community, character and humanity. Those are the things that traditionally go. What we have more of is traffic, concrete, tower blocks, upper-deck pedestrian ways and, in the process, invariably much higher rents and much higher house prices.
This is not what Londoners want—except the property developers. We are now seeing the beginnings of a violent reaction against this type of comprehensive redevelopment. The irony is that we have been extremely sensitive to this reaction in another sector, namely housing. In

the Housing Act. 1969, the Labour Government, and now supported by the present Government—I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for this—and by the great majority of local authorities put a much greater emphasis in housing on improvement, conservation and rehabilitation as against massive demolition, clearance and redevelopment. Similarly, we are all today putting much greater emphasis on low rise building and a variety of scales and much less emphasis on enormous tower blocks. I believe that the same shift of emphasis is needed when we are talking about whole areas. I do not mean that there should be no change of any kind. There must be some piecemeal improvement to stop blight and general rundown. But the improvement should be a piecemeal, gradual and sensitive one and not these vast schemes for comprehensive redevelopment.
But the trouble is—and here I make a point which obviously must divide the two sides of the House—that piecemeal improvement is infinitely less attractive to the private developers because it brings them much less profit and site return than total demolition and rebuilding. We have an absolutely direct conflict between private profit and the public interest. We have a situation in which we shall not achieve the objective without the public ownership of development land.
My fourth objection is that what is going on in central London is the antithesis of any proper planning. We are in a muddle of piecemeal proposals. This is all very well and often positively desirable if we are discussing a single site, but it is disastrous if applied to central London as a whole. If we think of the present position, we find it almost incredible. We have wholly separate plans at present for Covent Garden. We have Piccadilly Mark I. We now have Piccadilly Mark II just produced out of a hat. We have a plan for a Trafalgar Square pedestrian precinct. We still have, I assume—I do not know what has happened to it—a Whitehall redevelopment plan which was prepared years ago by Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Sir Colin Buchanan. For my part, though, if that plan were sunk without trace I should not be sorry.
We have the Grosvenor Estate plan for Mayfair and Belgravia. A few days ago


a new plan was announced by the Crown Estates Commissioners, a £20 million plan, for the 23 acres of the Millbank Estate. All these plans involve the inevitable increase in office space, the inevitable conference centre, the inevitable increase in road traffic and the inevitable increases in rents and house prices. None of these separate plans is related to any other. They are not drawn together. They are not presented as part of a coherent view of what sort of central London we want. They are not even produced by a single planning authority.
In passing, I must say that the way in which the GLC has abdicated responsibility for Piccadilly is a disgrace. It was simply part of a horse-dealing agreement with Westminster City Council, that if the GLC kept out of Piccadilly, Westminster would keep out of Covent Garden. That is not the way in which the affairs of a great capital city should be managed.
Not only are these plans not related to each other, but they are not related in any way to what may come out of Mr. Frank Layfield's GLDP inquiry and the Minister's decision on it. After all, the Minister will have to take decisions in the light of the panel's report on office employment policy, on densities for central London, on road traffic schemes in central London and on the whole character of central London. The decisions which the Minister, rightly, will have to take on these matters could easily totally destroy all the assumptions on which the Piccadilly, Covent Garden and other schemes are based. That is a farcical position.
Even more serious, without waiting for the results of the various inquiries now in process, developments are going ahead or are announced which will pre-empt the Minister's decision and in the process will determine the character of central London as a whole, while we can do virtually nothing about it.
Let us take the Covent Garden area as an example. There is the Hazlemere development at the back of Drury Lane, the demolition of Odham's Press building, and the proposal to which I briefly referred, Cambridge Circus, with Trentishoe Mansions, which I am told if improved could house 100 people, now

having their tenants cleared out. The last one has now been cleared out, and the site is to be used for a development by Town and City Properties, a 19-storey office block with an office employment capacity one and a half times that of the long empty Centre Point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has mentioned. This is a development which would surely totally destroy the character of Charing Cross Road, with all its bookshops, which I should have thought would be a great loss to central London. I am happy to say that the Camden Council is fighting this development. I wish them every success.
But similar developments are going on in the rest of central London. For instance, in Hatton Garden we have a new plan for the Gamages site by Town and City Properties—again more offices, higher rents, and demolition of existing small traders' premises. At this moment, at the corner of Piccadilly and Hamilton Place at Hyde Park Corner, a group of 19th century houses is being demolished to make way for an hotel tower block for Pan-Am and BOAC. I was all for encouraging luxury hotels in London four or five years ago. Indeed, it was one of my schemes that gave such an incentive. But do we still need a large number of additional luxury as opposed to second-class hotels in central London? I doubt it.
Then there is Petty France and Queen Anne's Mansions practically across the way. Most of us discovered almost by accident a proposal for a huge tower block on that site to be designed by Sir Basil Spence. Whether we want any more contributions by Sir Basil Spence to London's skyline is, I should have thought, a matter for considerable doubt.
What is particularly objectionable is that much of this is going on in a secret, wheeler-dealer, hole-in-the-corner kind of way. Piccadilly Mark I was produced without its ever going to the Westminster Planning Committee. Piccadilly Mark II appeared in the evening newspapers tonight for the first time without anyone ever having seriously discussed it. There was the vulgar horse-trading between Westminster Council and the Land Securities Investment Trust over Artillery Mansions, I should like to hear the comments of Lady Dartmouth and her Stockholm


working party on how these matters are being conducted in view of all that she and her party said about public participation and the need for public choice in these matters.
I believe with passion that it is now time to call a halt. It is time to stop this piecemeal hacking away at our city. It is time to say to the GLC, to Westminster City Council, to Land Securities Investment Trust, to Town and City Properties, to the lot of them, "Gentlemen, we've had enough. We, the people of London, now propose to decide for ourselves what sort of city we want to live in".
Only the Minister can make this wish effective. What should he do? I believe that as a minimum he should call for a stop to all major developments in central London at least till Mr. Layfield and his panel have reported on the GLDP. I do not mean that we should totally stop everything happening. Of course, we must have a continuing process of renovation, restoration and the occasional replacement of existing buildings. I am speaking about major schemes of the Piccadilly or Covent Garden variety.
It must be clear that we cannot take sensible decisions on any of these individual schemes until we hear Mr. Layfield's views on the road network, office employment and all those matters concerning London as a whole. But I do not think that will be enough because the Layfield inquiry goes very wide and covers the greater London area which has a population as great as some of the regions. It may not, therefore, go into detail on the historic centre of London which we are discussing tonight. We shall want to take a view of central London in the light of the strategy for greater London which emerges from the GLDP inquiry.
How do we get a total view of the kind of central London that we want? One alternative, I suppose, would be to use the Central London Planning Conference. I do not know how many hon. Members until recently, or perhaps even now, have been familiar with this body. I am ashamed to say that I have not been very familiar with it. It is a conference which has as its constituents a number of the central London boroughs. I see that it has recently approved a proposal for the preparation of a co-ordinated plan for the central area, to be called

"The Advisory Plan for Central London".
I welcome its awareness that we must have a plan for central London as a whole, and I am, as the Secretary of State knows, a consistent defender of local democracy. But we are not tonight discussing simply a local Government problem. We are not discussing the centre of Grimsby, but the centre of our capital city. I discussed the centre of Grimsby on Sunday when I had to excoriate Labour as well as Conservative councillors for pulling down every building which was worth preserving in Grimsby. But I doubt whether the Central London Planning Conference is the right way to treat the matter now before us. We must treat it as a national problem.
I propose to the Secretary of State, therefore, that once he has the report of the GLDP inquiry, he should set up a planning inquiry commission under Section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, to examine in the light of the GLDP strategy all major schemes affecting the historic centre of London, the Commission to sit in public and to include lay members of the public. It should be deliberately designed to stimulate the most intense public discussion and debate. It is obvious that this would mean, let us say, a two-year delay or moratorium on all these plans. I would regard that as an admirable result. The Secretary of State quite rightly was willing to accept a two-year moratorium in the case of London's dockland, so if it was right to freeze development effectively for two years in order at the end to get a better plan as a result of a better survey for dockland, it surely must be right also for the historic centre of the country's capital.
If the Secretary of State rejects that, I do not mind what method he uses provided he achieves the objective, which is to prohibit further destruction until the public have taken a view about what sort of place they want Central London to be, and until the public have told us whether they share the vision of central London, which I certainly do not, that is presented by Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Prendergast, Sir Charles Forte and Sir Harold Samuel.
If the Minister takes the opposite view and allows these plans to go ahead, a


very dangerous mood will develop amongst Londoners. There already is a mood of helpless resentment at the inability to stop these damned developments, and this may develop into a mood of active resentment. People will not have London continuously mutilated in this way for the sake of property development and the private motorist. They will not have an endless number of Centre Points and an endless number of uniform, monolithic, comprehensive redevelopments which break up communities and destroy the historic character of the city.
In conclusion, I will take a liberty which I do not often take of reading something I wrote in a book which I called aptly "The Conservative Enemy" and which I wrote 10 years ago.
Excited by speculative gain, the property developers furiously rebuild the urban centres with unplanned and æsthetically tawdry office blocks; so our cities become the just objects of world-wide pity and ridicule for their architectural mediocrity, commercial vulgarity, and lack of civic or historic pride.
I believe that is even more true today. The Secretary of State, like myself, has returned from the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm. Let him take the opportunity we have provided tonight to say loud and clear and once and for all that he and we place the human environment above the profits of the Land Securities Investment Trust.

7.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I thank the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) for raising this debate. I am in considerable difficulty in commenting in much detail because I have a judicial capacity not only on the Greater London Development Plan inquiry with the massive impact that it has but also on most of the major developments that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech. It would be wrong, therefore, to make comments and prejudge the inspector's reports that I shall be getting on these subjects.
I welcome the debate because I certainly recognise and share the concern about the manner in which development may take place with the effect of ruining the character of a locality. I

would always hope to judge planning decisions—and every other decision of my Department—on the basis of how I could improve the quality of the environment in any particular locality or region but in no circumstances on the criteria of the interests of the property development industry.
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise, however, that there are substantial difficulties in the type of solution he outlined. It is easy to speak in general terms about letting the public have their say without defining who are the public in the context of central London. For example, some hon. Members present may consider "the public" to be those living in central London, who naturally have a considerable interest in what happens in their locality, whereas many members of the public have a perhaps much more direct interest in London as a place to visit for entertainment and recreation. There is a range of sectors to which we can refer as "the public". Those sectors will almost certainly never be in broad agreement on any one issue. Anyone who has made major planning decisions, particularly the very controversial ones, will know that the one thing we can be certain of when we have made the decision is that those who approve will remain silent and those who disapprove will be very vocal.
For example, the right hon. Gentleman quoted his general feeling now against major central redevelopments, obviously referring in that context to London. Recently, however, I opened the main central development in the City of Gloucester, and as someone who spent quite a portion of his childhood in Gloucester I would argue that that redevelopment has reactivated the centre in such a way that it will be a livelier place with a great deal of public recreational facility and amenity that it lacked before. In my purely personal judgment—it was not a scheme that I approved but was presumably approved by the previous Government—it will do a great deal for Gloucester. On all planning matters it is very difficult to generalise and say "This policy should be applied".
I should like to speak about one or two of the major problems that I see confronting London as the centre of a massive conurbation, one of the biggest in


the world, dwarfing any other in this country. Any decision-taking in London must first be carried out not simply in the narrow context of central London but in the context of a regional planning strategy for the South-East. The previous Government recognised this in preparing the Strategic Plan for the South-East, which I received on coming into office. To try to pursue that strategy, I decided to keep office development permits for the South-East and London and not to give them up, (as was correctly done in various other parts of the country where they were not effective.
Similarly, other policies affect future demands on the centre of a city: policies that we pursue in terms of developing new towns and new growth areas in the South-East, and policies towards the green belt. Once again we are in one of those phases of massive pressure on London's green belt. The developers would find it much easier to develop the green belt than any other area because of the constant demand there, and various strong cases for housing are propounded. But such development would have an effect on the centre of London. Growth points like South Hampshire influence the pressure on central London. London as a local government entity expresses its concern at a reduction in its population, a reduction in rateable value and a reduction in general activities within the centre. We must try to achieve a balance.
In office development there are again conflicting arguments. To some extent I would argue that it is right to go ahead with office development in the City of London area, purely because the levels of rentals for that one quite small locality are such as to mean that the people who go there are basically people with an economic need to be in the City of London. Office development policy, toughly applied in the City of London, had the effect not of hindering the property developers but of greatly enhancing their fortunes through the great escalation in rents that resulted. If we are to expand our activities as one of the financial centres of Europe and the world, we must provide in that locality the up-to-date and appropriate office machinery for such things to happen. The movement into the City of London which will now almost certainly take place, with many

more European banks, insurance companies and so on establishing themselves, is to the national benefit. It is one of the factors affecting overall decision-taking on office development.
The right hon. Gentleman understandably raised, as have many people in the past, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) and the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat), the scandal of developers who have grown rich through the exercise of planning control on offices, both by the local authority and within the ODP context, which limits the availability of office space at a particular moment. Having obtained planning permissions, they have constructed office blocks and deliberately left them empty to enhance their capital gains. By their action these developers have frustrated the desire of the planning authorities to provide office accommodation at these locations and have prevented others from providing the accommodation thought to be necessary. They have also deprived the ratepayers of a substantial contribution to the rates and have outraged the nation by the sheer waste of substantial resources.
Some major developments have remained empty for many years—Centre Point has remained empty for eight years: six years under the previous Government and two years under the present Government. I believe that the time has come to bring an end to this highly undesirable practice. Therefore, I have decided that, unless those responsible take action to ensure that the practice ceases within the next few months, I will be ready to introduce legislation to guarantee that these existing blocks are suitably occupied, and that future office blocks in areas where office development permit sanction operates are not built in order to remain empty.
There are a number of possible courses of action open to me. They include imposing financial sanctions of sufficient magnitude to make it financially very unattractive to leave these buildings empty; or, alternatively, providing powers in office buildings that remain empty for more than a specified period to have their management taken over by a public authority for the purpose of seeing that they are speedily brought into use. When I have fully explored these two main


alternatives I will, if the practice continues, be ready to introduce the appropriate legislation so that one of the worst abuses of our planning policies will at last be dealt with.

Mr. J. T. Price: All of us on the Opposition side, and, I am sure, Conservative Members, very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. But the scandal he has described is not limited to Centre Point. Unfortunately, previous Governments have baled out speculative developers at places like the State Building in Holborn, which was taken over by the Government, thus saving the bacon of developers, some years ago. State House, the development in Victoria Street, was a similar example which was taken over by the Government. Many developers know that if only they hold on long enough a Government Department will fill their offices with civil servants, at great cost to the public purse. I hope that the Secretary of State will be tough on that sort of thing.

Mr. Walker: Whoever has been the Minister responsible, including the former Ministers of Works, in whichever Government were in power, has tried to negotiate the appropriate rents. Funnily enough, when the previous Government introduced office development permits, it was just at the time when many developers were getting into difficulties by an over-production of office space. Therefore, I think that the introduction of the policy was a mistake, though it is easier to say that with hindsight. The imposition of a restriction on future office space meant that, if the developers waited for a time, there would be a further increased demand, with no further supply coming through. This of course helped them. This has been an incredible situation and I hope that in this way we will bring it to an end.
I go on to some of the other pressures in terms of office space and its association with the public transport system. I have considerable sympathy—once again I have to be careful in what I say—with the view that the direct linking of the public transport system by providing office space at main line termini and stations has considerable attractions.

From the point of view of transportation in general, in terms of planning decisions by both my Department and local authorities, they will recognise the considerable advantages not only to nationalised industry. This is because it enables a centre to develop and utilise its considerable land assets and also in terms of basically sound planning, in enabling people to exit from a public transport system into an office block for their work.
I am concerned about hotel building and I disagree with the view that all luxury hotel building should be prevented. Quite rightly the previous Government allowed quite a few large luxury hotels to be built and gave assistance to help them to be built. All the projections of worldwide tourism, both at high and low income levels, indicate that it is likely that a city and a town so world-renowned as London will have a considerable increase in demand over the years ahead. From the point of view both of our balance of payments and of the world enjoying London as a whole, one should try to ensure that the correct amount of building takes place.
I was concerned when I found that whole residential areas were being turned into hotel accommodation. Once again this is a matter which only tolerably rarely comes to me for decision. However, there was an instance where a developer had bought a large block of flats in Chelsea and applied for planning permission to convert the block into a hotel. I rejected the application because it would drive people out of residential areas, with all the consequent disadvantages to the locality.
One of the dilemmas of the planning of central London is in trying to ensure that the people who live there now do not become victims of its overall development and to ensure that they have an enhanced environment as a result of development. It was for that reason that I decided to take the dockland area, a massive area of London and a unique opportunity, and give the consultants the task with the criterion of having as their first priority the provision for the people who now live there of a better quality of environment from the resultant development. As a criterion, that imposes considerable limitations on the planning. All sort of things, which would


be exceedingly attractive in such a location in commercial terms, become far less attractive if one has to cater for an existing population on a basis which will be good for their environment and quality of life. I was of the opinion that that was the right priority to place upon that development. We suggested that the consultants should take 18 months and I am pleased to say that they are on time. We expect the report to appear at the time they originally promised that it would appear.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I appreciate the importance of the quality of living. However, an important element in the quality of living is the provision of work. We are a little worried that in the immediate area to which the Minister is referring long delay may frustrate many interesting commercial and industrial possibilities.

Mr. Walker: I am well aware of the concern of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am anxious that when we talk about the availability of work in a locality, we plan so as to give a very different and greater diversity of job opportunity than has existed in many of these areas in the past. One of the mistakes of planning—this applies not only to London but nation-wide—is the temptation, when looking at job opportunity, to place the same quality of jobs in the same area all the time and not to give an area a greater diversity of opportunity than at present exists.
In the development of London—this concerns the whole of the centre of London—prosperity has basically tended to be in the west and poverty in the east. That is, of course, generalising. The opportunity in dockland, combined with the decision to site the third London Airport to the east of London, can with the extra communication and public transport facilities which can arise give a unique opportunity for development in London which will be more in favour of the east than in the past.
In terms of general planning, I have announced my rejection of the application for a helicopter port at Shadwell Basin. One of the reasons for my rejection of that development was my rejection of the argument that the locality in question was not what one might call of

high environmental quality which, therefore, was a good place to put such a development. That is the sort of mistake which has been repeatedly made in planning in the past.
In the total development of an area like central London one does not have a moment of time at which the situation will be static. Nor will the influences be confined to the narrow context of central London. In making any of these major decisions on public inquiries, I have the freedom to say that I shall delay taking a decision until I receive the Greater London Development Plan report or any other report which will affect that decision. I can assure the House that if I feel there is some advice which should reach me and which I should wait for, I will not hesitate to delay making a decision for that reason.
A public inquiry gives an opportunity for a great deal of public discussion to take place. For example, I shall defend the decision which I made on the Piccadilly Circus proposals to allow a plan to go forward for public inquiry. There was a comment in the papers at the time—there was no reason for such a comment—or a suggestion that I had provided office development permits on a massive scale which indicated that I was in favour of a large area of office space in that area. I was in the position when giving the permit that I could not get any application brought forward because until a permit is obtained, it is illegal to consider a planning application.
As far as that locality is concerned, I cannot comment on the attractiveness or unattractiveness of part of it. However, some buildings in that area were falling steadily into a state of disrepair because of complete uncertainty about what was to happen. In the past, developers have allowed buildings to fall into a state of disrepair, and I was anxious to get something much more positive and certain about the future. I was told that I had to grant an office development permit if developers were to bring forward any developments. Then I ask whether I could give a permit for a limited period so that it would not be possible to approve and build the offices in time but would enable developers to bring applications forward.
Accordingly, I gave an ODP for three months only: it ends and lapses in three months from the time I gave it. I considered that to be sufficient time for the developers to make an application. I then contacted Westminster City Council and told the council that if this was an application which it was in any way inclined to accept, it was one which I wanted to go to a public inquiry. In making the statement about office development permits—I quote from the Press notice issued by my Department—I said:
Mr. Walker emphasises that issue of the permits in no way prejudges the decision of the local planning authority on the planning application, or his own decision if the applications are called in by him.
That was the basis upon which the dialogue and discussion that is taking place was obtained.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby commented on the modification plan that is now coming forward. I see that the Evening Standard indicates that this is a plan which I know all about. I knew nothing about it until I read The Times this morning and the Evening Standard this afternoon. Presumably those concerned will be coming forward with their application, in which event it will be looked into by a public inquiry in exactly the same way.
In terms of another controversial decision, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the building in Queen Anne's Mansions. He did not like this building and considered that the development had been planned in great secrecy. I hope he knows that this was no decision of mine. It was a decision in 1969 of the Labour Government which decided on examination not to have a public inquiry. If I alter that decision in any way now the owners and developers of that property will be entitled to substantial sums by way of compensation. However, that was a decision, made objectively by the then Government in 1969, which I inherited.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Grimsby about trying to get a total approach to the problem of transportation, not only in London but in any town or city. Again this is easier said than done. The knowledge available about

the right balance for these topics is still very much a developing science. All I am basically sure about is that there is a need to improve the public transport system in most of our towns and cities.
In the immediate context of London, for example, we have injected more capital into the public transport system than any Government have done for a considerable time. All public transport systems, including those in urban areas, have had greater grants than were previously available. Even so, such financial aid may be spent on the wrong systems. We need to develop a much greater expertise in urban transport systems, both private and public, than exists not only in this country but anywhere in the world.
I am anxious to develop a new system of Government finance for transport systems as a whole. The present system, whereby we give various specific grants for roads, public transport and sundry other matters concerned with transport, results in much fragmented investment. For example, I would argue that we may spend millions of pounds on a road scheme which merely results in moving a traffic jam a mile up the road, thereby not getting the full benefit from the investment.
Now that we have the erstwhile Ministry of Transport and the planning side of the erstwhile Ministry of Housing and Local Government in one Department, I want to develop a total block grant for transport, so that we can go to the local authority concerned and say "When you have completed an adequate overall transportation strategy we will decide on the quality of that strategy and give you a grant to cover the whole of it, not just a fragmented part."
The skill in doing this in the most effective way for planning is relatively new and many failures have taken place. The classic failure—I am under great pressure to change our own policy—is the out-of-town shopping centre concept in America. That in my view has killed more American cities than any other sort of development. It can be argued that it has a whole range of advantages for the motorist since he can get to a locality quickly, park and not cause urban congestion. However, on the other side of the balance sheet the damage which this


causes to city centres and the social life within them, with its tendency to leave poorer sections of the community in the inner city with the worst shopping facilities at the highest prices, makes it a concept which it would be a mistake for this country to pursue.
I apologise for not being able to take up and answer some of the detailed points made by the right hon. Member for Grimsby but I am limited in time. I hope my remarks have assured the House that the general anxieties mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman are not only on one side but exist on both sides of the House.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We all appreciate the Secretary of State's difficulty in answering or commenting in any detail on the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). Indeed, speaking for myself, I cannot complain about anything the right hon. Gentleman said. I think his ideas are admirable and I hope he will be successful in carrying them out. Great difficulties will present themselves, as they do in all planning applications over big areas, particularly when the interests of the developer are in conflict, as they often are, with the interests of the public.
I shall detain the House for only a few minutes to make one or two general points.
My first point concerns the argument by my right hon. Friend about the mutilation of the City of London by modern architectural development. This is a matter of great importance regarding Piccadilly Circus and Covent Garden, two huge areas, where we are told there will be comprehensive development. It sounds all right. It sounds sensible. However, I get terrified when I hear of even small-scale development nowadays. And when it comes to comprehensive development, the irreparable damage that can be done to the character of London is absolutely frightening.
We should recognise that during the last 20 years, particularly the last five or 10 years, London's character has been badly damaged by the modern architecture which is going up. Some of it may be inevitable. Of course, some old houses

have to come down and some areas have to be re-developed on a big scale. But, instead of the grace and elegance which was the characteristic of a large part of London, we are getting large, heavy blocks which are not only destroying their immediate neighbourhoods, but large areas around as well, because they can be seen for miles away. The tragedy is that so many large blocks are being built. This may be inevitable, in view of the many people who want to live in London and the need for further office and hotel accommodation. However, in the old days, when an architect built a street, a house, or a number of houses together and made a bloomer, and the result was unpleasant, the damage was not severe. One regretted it, of course, but the damage was localised.
Nowadays, these huge 10, 15 and 20-storey blocks which are being built all over London can be and are seen by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people every day. They will continue to be seen for perhaps 100 years or more. The damage is colossal. The situation must be watched carefully to be sure no more damage is done. A Canadian friend recently told me that every time he comes to London it appears to look more and more like Toronto. That is happening now. I do not know why these big buildings, so many of them objectionable and damaging London, are being put up.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Profit.

Mr. Strauss: One reason in my view is that our architects are not capable of meeting the technical problems of today. They cannot build high blocks that are beautiful. It is a tragedy that so much redevelopment is taking place in London and when the standards of our architects are so poor.
Another reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) said, is the need to maximise the profit in any development. It makes a developer inevitably much keener on utility and the money he can get out of it than putting up something of elegance and beauty. The pressure on a developer is enormously strong. That is another reason why London is changing in such an appalling way.
I ask the Secretary of State to bear all this in mind. Of course, it has been going on for some time. I am not blaming one Government or another. I am sure we all warmly welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State about the action he has in mind regarding the Centre Point; but, for heaven's sake, do not let him preside—I do not know for how long he will be in his present position—over the destruction and mutilation of London's beauty and elegance. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to stop this happening. When comprehensive development takes place on a large scale, as will happen, in Covent Garden, the danger is infinite, because once the damage is done it is irreparable.
My next point, which I shall express equally briefly, concerns the threat to the London theatre. The London theatre is famous throughout the world. There is no need for me to talk about its excellent and immensely high standards and the high regard in which it is held. Everybody realises that. It is due to a variety of things: tradition, the high skill of the actors and acting schools, the very large amount of money in subsidies which goes to various companies. Our London theatre has a deservedly reputation, but among the other factors which in my view give rise to that high reputation are the large number of excellent, delightful, beautiful and charming theatres. They are being seriously threatened. I understand that according to the latest plan the Criterion is to be saved as the result of a public outcry, and that is good.
In the Covent Garden Development Scheme a number of theatres are affected—the Adelphi, the Vaudeville, the Arts, the Duchess. What is happening is that the land on which the theatres stand is so valuable that developers are going, or have already gone, to the proprietors and saying they would like to buy them for a large sum of money to enable them to undertake large-scale development and make large profits. That is the danger to many theatres in London. Many of them are beautiful, most of them are elegant, nearly all are attractive inside. In a way in which in my experience no new theatre can, they create an atmosphere which is wholly pleasant to the

audience; you melt as you go into the theatre and you look forward to the play. Most of them were built in the latter part of the last century or the first 25 years of this. They are beautiful theatres which it would be a tragedy to London to destroy. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on them and not let any of them disappear.
It is no use saying, as has been said in the past when some old theatres have gone, that new ones will be built in their place. Perhaps that is better than nothing, but it really is not any good because if a new theatre is built in a redevelopment scheme the cost will be colossal and it will be impossible for the new owner to run it at a profit unless he charges exorbitant and prohibitive seat prices. So there is a danger of the theatre being killed by the large-scale development which is taking place—not only the ones we are talking about today but future ones—killed by developers pulling down old theatres and replacing them by enormously costly new ones. We have the example of the Prince Charles Theatre which became a cinema. But even if there is a guarantee that it will remain a theatre it is essential to guarantee that it will be possible to rent the theatre at a reasonable price and run it at a profit without charging the public exorbitant amounts.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the importance of the London theatres as buildings, as works of art, as some of the most gracious and lovely buildings in London. I ask him to preserve them, to have a general rule that no old theatre shall be destroyed, or where it is inevitable—and there may be some cases in which an old theatre has to come down—to ensure that any new theatre which is put in its place will be run as a theatre, that it will have all the proper accessories and that if necessary the developers will provide out of the profits they are making a sufficient sum of money to act as a subsidy to keep that theatre alive. Otherwise it may die.
It is terribly important that the numbers of our theatres should not decline, that our existing theatres should be preserved as far as possible and that, where


they are pulled down, other theatres should be put in their place which will act as live theatres and play their part in the cultural life of London. I ask the Secretary of State to bear that point in mind, as it is of as much importance as the preservation of the character of the London we love, and which we hope he will not allow to be destroyed while he is the responsible Minister.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Brian Batsford: I am very glad to be called after the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). He mentioned the mutilation of the character of London, which is a point I should like to take up later in my speech. With other hon. and right hon. Members and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, we find ourselves in rather a difficulty in that, having said that we would have a debate on Piccadilly Circus, we were sent at the end of last week a very vast brief by the Westminster City Council on one plan and then got to the House this afternoon to find that it had been superseded by another. For that reason alone, I have no cause at all to go over the long and rather sad story of Piccadilly Circus over the past 10 years.
There is one point I wish to correct. I notice in reading this very large Press hand-out which was given to me by the Westminster City Council that they say that Piccadilly Circus is the only part of John Nash's grand scheme—townscape parade of 1814, in their words, which went all the way from St. James's Park to Regent's Park—which was never completed. This remark may be designed to show that the Westminster City Council and its architects are going to finish off what Nash began, but on the other hand I must say that this is quite nonsense because, to the best of my knowledge, Piccadilly Circus was finished by Nash. That is why it is called a Circus. Piccadilly Circus was very similar to Oxford Circus. There are photographs and drawings to prove this.
Thomas Verity's Criterion was not built in Piccadilly Circus at all but in Coventry Street, and that Circus as Nash designed it stood for 70 to 80 years. The Piccadilly Circus that we know today only came

into existence in 1886 when Shaftesbury Avenue was cut through, and the London Pavilion, classical though it may look behind all its neon signs, was built at the same time. This, of course, involved the complete demolition of one corner of the original Circus. The last corner to be demolished was the South-West corner, the corner of Piccadilly and Lower Regent Street, and that was not taken down until as recently as 1930.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) when he says that Piccadilly Circus as it now stands has no architectural unity, but in the 90 years that it has been in this rather strange, unplanned state this untidy jumble of buildings—and we all know that it is untidy—with the statue of Eros in the middle has probably come to mean more to Londoners and to visitors to London than any other part of our capital city. If we destroy Piccadilly Circus we destroy not only an architectural concept, but a legend, and whoever tries to recreate that legend in a slightly different position or in a slightly different way will find that he is performing a risky transplant of the heart of a city.
I notice that the Greater London Development Plan refers to Piccadilly Circus as an "action area". I suppose that that is a modern or gimmicky way of saying that something must be done about it, or perhaps at long last we have an alternative for the ghastly phrase "ripe of development". I always think that that phrase is one of the worst ever invented in our planning terminology. But whatever "action area" means, it is going to mean demolition on a scale which, in my view, is unrealistic and unjustified.
I always thought that the great redeeming feature of the 1968 Piccadilly Scheme Mark II, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby referred to it, was that it was probably the first time that all the developers from all the sites round the Circus, all the local authorities involved and all the architects employed sat round a table and agreed to collaborate in a unified scheme. I am glad to see that under the direction of Westminster City Council—though, like the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry that the GLC left Westminster City Council


to it—that collaboration has continued but, as a result, the redevelopment is on such a vast scale that it is destroying whole areas far beyond the Circus itself. We all know some of the streets in Soho behind the Pavillion which will go as a result of this redevelopment, and there is no guarantee of anything comparable being put in their place.
We now know—and it has been said during the debate—that the Westminster City Plan has received so much reaction from the Press and public that it is sufficient to kill it stone dead, and it seems from the papers tonight that it is stone dead. I have no doubt that some changes have to be made, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall that surely we could be a little more modest with our modernisation, and a little less ambitious with our redevelopment. In other words, could we not do things on a slightly smaller scale?
This immediate public reaction to the scheme has emphasised the growing concern among people in London about the development of central London itself. We live in one of the most historic cities in the world, and more people than ever before are coming to visit London. I constantly hear people ask, "Why can we not leave it alone? Why can we not leave it as it is?" Surely our efforts should be concentrated on conserving those things which are irreplaceable, rather than on putting in their place things which are so speculative? I cannot help feeling that if the present rate of demolition continues there will be precious little left of the old and familiar London as we knew it, and very little left to show our visitors from overseas. And much that is left will be seen against a backcloth of concrete and glass.
As every day goes by we see more and more buildings being demolished and the sort of building which I resent being demolished as much as anything else is the smaller domestic building which lined our streets, what Professor Albert Richardson called people's Georgian. As one comes into London today one finds all the people's Georgian covered with outdoor advertising, but if that were removed one would still find underneath decent detail and good building.
What about the Victorian and Edwardian building? As a whole it is cosy, friendly, inconvenient and possibly ugly, but it is part and pattern of the London that we know. It is part of the townscape in London, and presumably it is being demolished because it is uneconomic. Presumably, also, in its place there will be put faceless, shapeless boxes which will not only be built of poor materials but will be finished indifferently, for the same reason, namely, that it is uneconomic to build them any better.
There was one large building in Westminster which I was very pleased to see come down—Queen Anne's Mansions. What a breath of fresh air its demolition meant; what a wonderful space against the background of Queen Anne's Gate and that beautiful little modern Guards Chapel. Then, to my horror, when I went to the Upper Waiting Room last week, I saw what was to take its place, something overpowering, ponderous and top heavy. The right hon. Member for Grimsby said that Sir Basil Spence was responsible. To be fair to Sir Basil, he was only the consultant architect. But there it is—this monster, looking like three old women in basket-weave hats sitting down in the middle of Westminster.
Hon. Members have mentioned Hyde Park Corner. The decent, unobstrusive buildings there are being removed—for what? Their place has been taken by a modern hotel, undistinguished in design and completely wrong in such a site alongside Apsley House. The only advantage the hotel will have is for those who go inside it and look out, because they will not see the building itself.
The catalogue of tragedy in London is long. Outside Westminster, there are the windswept concrete terraces of the South Bank complex. One thinks of them as being cold and raw and uninviting. No one ever goes there. No one ever sits there or walks there, because they are so uninviting. There are the great canyons of glass and concrete which now embrace so many of our city churches. There are the waste spaces of the Elephant and Castle. There are the monumental tombstones, like the Shell Building on the other side of the river. It occurred to me the other day that County Hall—not that I have ever loved it as a building—has one


great advantage in that it shields this House from the Shell Building. Then one thinks of the buildings overlooking Hyde Park. One thinks of the Knightsbridge Barracks and wonders what happened at the top—whether the builder ran out of material or the architect of ideas.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned Toronto. It is true to say that when one comes into London, by whichever way, one does not really know where one is. Any visitor could be in Milan or Barcelona or even in Detroit. I am not surprised that so many people who love our London ask, "Who is responsible for all this?" They want to know who is replanning and rebuilding the centre of London—whether, as has been suggested, it is the developers, whether it is the architects, or whether it is a combination of both. Or is it the Greater London Council, which is the strategic planning authority, or the Westminster City Council, which is the local planning authority? What of the Royal Fine Art Commission? That surely is a body whose rôle is very uncertain and unknown, although I have heard it said that most of the skyscrapers in London are so out of proportion because the top 20 feet has been cut off by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
Probably the responsibility for the future face of London is in too many hands. It is split up amongst too many authorities. If that is the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his great new Department of the Environment can fulfil the co-ordinating responsibility which is required. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I hope that he will give us some assurance, not only about Piccadilly but also about what other measures of control can be applied to the replanning of Central London as a whole.

8.40 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I hope the House will bear with me if for a few moments I shift the debate a short distance from Covent Garden and Piccadilly to the heights of Alexandra Palace. Alexandra Park and Palace are under the control of the Greater London Council and the greater part of them are in the Wood Green constituency where they have long been regarded as a vital local asset. They are a double asset because

they combine open space with a valuable building. It is about 190 acres, mostly open park. This is a vital lung for the people in this part of London.
It has always been so regarded, and the former Wood Green Borough Council strenuously resisted any attempts to build there, even the building of houses on flat land which was formerly the Alexandra Park racecourse. The retention of this open space is even more vital at present. Unfortunately, since the Greater London Council took over control from the local authorities there has been a spate of planning applications from commercial interests, all competing for the use of the very limited open space.
Unfortunately, the Greater London Council has supported most of these planning applications. Perhaps I could indicate the kind of thing which has been suggested. A body calling itself Group Leisure has applied for a 12-hole novelty putting course surrounded by a concrete track for go-karts. Two separate applications have been made for squash courts, one for 12 courts, with associated facilities including baths and so on, and another for four adjacent to the existing ski slope, again with associated facilities. An application has been made for the erection of a model village which is innocuous. EMI Film and Theatre Corporation has applied for permission to put in a drive-in cinema. Module 2 Ltd wants an equestrian sports centre, and a new consortium which is so far unnamed has applied to put in a trotting course with adjoining stands and stables. Archform wants to build an international ice-skating centre and Leisure 2000 wishes to erect a massive domed structure for various family leisure activities.
The important thing about all these GLC-supported applications is that in the first place they would restrict more and more the amount of space open freely to the public, because the public would have to pay to enter all these facilities and there would be little open parkland left. Secondly, by their very nature some would involve substantial building in the open space. Even those which do not, would require pay booths, cloakrooms, bar or restaurant facilities and equipment stalls and so on, with a great clutter of buildings all over this valuable open space.
It is also important to note that the nearby Lea Valley regional park will provide much better outdoor sports facilities than could be provided on this site and in Islington, again fairly close, there is the £1 million Sobell centre, a very ambitious family leisure scheme which is in the course of erection. Even if there were no other objection to these applications they would still be completely superfluous in this area.
The local planning authority is Haringey Borough Council, and it has so far resisted all these planning applications on the ground that this kind of piecemeal development would ruin the implementation of the feasibility study which everyone has agreed is vitally necessary if existing facilities are to be used in the most appropriate way. This study has been promised by the GLC, but so far it has not done anything about it, although I believe it intends to start on it in the coming year.
Since the public has been mentioned, I should add that it is strenuously opposed to this "Butlin Holiday Camp" type of development. It is completely inappropriate for this area.
It is not just a question of ruining open space, because Alexandra Palace itself, as many hon. Members will know, is a vast late Victorian building which is far more substantial than its detractors will admit, and which has very many admirers as a building in itself. It has long been a landmark in that part of the world and it has three valuable facilities. It is a vast area of accommodation which includes the present BBC premises complete with studios and a theatre which will become available when the BBC gives up its lease in 1977. In the building itself there are accommodated the skating rink, banqueting suites, college of art studios, and a variety of other flourishing activities, but what is unique about the palace is that it has a great hall which is absolutely enormous. It makes a first class exhibition centre which has, unfortunately, been run down by the Greater London Council, although the council has now had to reverse its decision to close it to exhibitions after 1972.
The great hall lends itself, in addition to exhibitions, to the kind of vast assembly which is very popular nowadays, particularly among young people. One

can hold concerts there, with thousands of people, and without any disturbance at all to neighbours because it is surrounded by open space. It contains the neglected famous Father Willis organ, the finest organ in Europe in its heyday, which the GLC recently sold for a negligible sum but which the new owners would be delighted to restore in situ if the necessary funds could be made available. In passing, I think it is worth noting that the amount of money lost by the Greater London Council by running down the exhibitions would probably more than cover the restoration of this famous organ.
My reason for raising the subject tonight is that I think it is important to realise that there are quite unique facilities in that part of London. People far more knowledgeable than I am, people like the late Sir Malcolm Sargent, and Yehudi Menuhin, and other people who are musical experts, are of the opinion that this could be a first class musical and cultural centre. Unfortunately, the clutter of buildings which the Greater London Council would like to erect in the grounds if planning permission could be given is not only designed to promote private commercial property, but I believe—and I am not alone in this—is also designed to make Alexandra Palace, the building itself, appear to be useless, so that the council can carry out its declared policy of demolishing the palace at enormous expense without too much opposition. It seems a mockery of planning to destroy at one and the same time a valuable open space which the public have enjoyed for generations and a unique, irreplaceable and priceless building which has so much valuable modern potential.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here now, but I hope that he or one of the other Ministers in his Department will make a point of visiting Alexandra Palace in near future, and that they will do whatever is possible to urge on the Greater London Council the importance of starting the feasibility study at the earliest possible moment. It is a local problem, but it is much more than a local problem. In London facilities of this kind are extremely limited, and it is therefore important to the whole community that the most appropriate and publicly desirable use should be made of those facilities where they do exist.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I hope that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) will forgive me if I do not follow her remarks about her own part of London but return instead to the affairs of the centre of London, for most of the buildings to which hon. Members referred earlier are in my constituency. It is on my constituency that I want to concentrate, although the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) has a share in one development.
Before coming to the main burden of my remarks I will say two "thank yous". First, I thank the Opposition for choosing the subject of tonight's debate. We in London do not have our fair share of the House's time compared with the more outlying regions of the Kingdom and I am grateful to the Opposition for making time available in this way.
I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for what he said about Centre Point. As he said, this matter has caused great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), to myself and to hon. Members of all parties representing Central London constituencies. The announcement made by my right hon. Friend may possibly spoil Mr. Harry Hyams' dinner but it will bring great joy to the rest of the country. As soon as we see Mr. Harry Hyams' properties, which are scattered over a wide area of central London, put to good use, the happier we shall all be, whatever our differences of opinion on other matters.
The great majority of people tend to think of Central London in terms of the great developments such as Piccadilly Circus and Covent Garden, about which we have heard so much, and other grand buildings, since these are the things which are most obvious to people who do not live in the city but who come in from outside either to this Palace or to the centre of London to work. For those of us who live, work and have our being in the centre of London, Piccadilly Circus and Covent Garden, important as they are, are only the tip of the iceberg of the problems which concern us.
Because we do not have high unemployment and other problems which affect

other parts of the country, there is a tendency to assume that we in London are particularly privileged and fortunate. But in a real sense we are a beleaguered city. Long-established communities are being broken up, familiar landmarks are disappearing and the population of the middle of London is declining rapidly. I illustrate that with two figures. In my constituency, the Cities of London and Westminster, which is only a small part of central London, the electorate for much of the 1960s was declining at the rate of about 1,000 a year. Since the 1970s began it has started to decline at the rate of about 2,000 a year. If people continue to leave, the middle of London at this rate, within less than the lifetime of most of us here the middle of London and the middle of Westminster will cease to exist as cities in which people live, have their being, bring up their children and live out their lives.
Of course, luxury flats and scores of houses will remain, in which diplomats will live. It may interest the House to know, as many people do not, that diplomats are exempt from rates. Diplomats will be able to continue to live in the middle of our cities. No doubt senior businessmen working for large national and multi-national companies, whose companies happily pay their living expenses, will also be able to continue to live here, and very nice it will be for them. There are also large council blocks. We have some fine council accommodation in the middle of London that will no doubt remain. In addition there will be poor quality accommodation of the sort that is still too common in all the London boroughs. That too, no doubt, will remain.
These accommodation units will be like ghettoes in a sea of office blocks, car parks and hotels. But what we need in the middle of London is not just the very rich, the very poor and the council tenants—although there is a place for all of them; we need a mixed community. We need the middling sort of people, people who are not very rich and not very poor. We need the people who marry, bring up children and participate in London local affairs. I do not mean the diplomat who comes in from Ruritania, lives here for a couple of years without having to pay any rates and then returns home. We do not only need the big


businessman who lives in Grosvenor Square and goes every morning in his Rolls Royce to the City and then in due course retires and goes to live in the country. We need the mixed community of every sort of person, particularly those who are neither rich nor poor but who can participate in all local affairs and carry the community on their shoulders.
One has only to walk round Mayfair and St. James's to realise that at night they are becoming dead areas. If we compare the situation in St. James's and Mayfair with New York, we see what can happen to the middle of a city when development gets out of control and the interests of ordinary people are ignored.
I must declare an interest. I was born in the City of Westminster and I do not want to see this City, part of which I have the honour to represent, go the way of New York.
It is difficult not to get carried away by emotion, but I am certainly not a Luddite. I recognise that we cannot freeze a living organism for all time; the fabric of the City must be renewed from time to time. We have only to look at the present state of Piccadilly Circus to see what can happen when part of the city is allowed to deteriorate beyond a certain point.
Many parts of our city need restoration, renewal and rebuilding. London is a charming, delightful, magnificent place but its fabric has constantly to be renewed. It is a wonderful city because generations have contributed something towards its development. Every generation must make its own architectural contribution, and so must ours.
I recognise that we cannot shut our eyes to the requirements of traffic. Motor transport has become an integral part of our life and culture. It is no good saying that we must not become slaves to the motor car. We must learn to adjust our urban environment to the motor car. This, too, will require change at different times and in different places.
I understand—how could the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster do otherwise—the needs of the business community. The City of London is the world's leading financial centre; the City of Westminster is one of the country's leading business communities. Both the City of London and the City of Westmins-

ter need to be able to build appropriate office accommodation. Because of that fact, and also because London is a tourist centre, we also need hotels.
But a balance must be struck between the various interests and the interests of the whole community. To my mind the balance has swung too far away from the people who live in central London towards those who make money out of it. In the long run if the balance is allowed to swing in the direction in which it has gone in recent years, business as well as the community will suffer. We have only to look to see what has happened in New York. In downtown New York, on Fifth Avenue and in all the fashionable places, the life has gone out of the middle of the city and a vacuum has been filled by poverty. New York has become such a highly disagreeable city to go into that an increasing number of businesses want to move out altogether. The people who work there do not want to go into the middle of New York or even into the streets which run off Fifth Avenue. They want to live and work in decent surroundings—in places where they are not attacked and knocked on the head. They want to go to places where the air is fit to breathe.
So one sees that New York first pushed out its people and brought in offices. But now, because it is so disagreeable, the offices are closing down and the commercial interests are moving out. This is a vicious circle. If we in London forget the interests of ordinary people and subordinate ourselves too much to offices we shall find that, although for a time we become an even greater business centre than we are at present, in the long run the city will die completely.
There are no easy answers to a matter as complex as this. We all know that the main need is for more housing of every sort, to rent and to buy. We need flats and houses, council accommodation, and above all accommodation in which individuals can live and have their own being in their own way. That is common ground between us. However, the Government can do a great deal in addition and before the housing becomes fully available. I referred to one possibility at Question Time today.
It is ridiculous that the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation


should have their headquarters in my constituency when the development areas in which their operations take place are crying out for more offices and services. Though not as large as the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board, the Burmah Oil Company is moving to Swindon. I think that the Coal Board ought to be able to go to Doncaster satisfactorily. Communications are just as good as they are to Swindon. These are outstanding examples, but it is difficult to see why other nationalised industries and Government Departments should all be concentrated in the middle of London in the most expensive office accommodation in the world. At a time when hotels are being built in such profusion it is difficult to understand why the Government continue to occupy hotels in Northumberland Avenue which were taken over in the first World War. Both parties bear a great responsibility for what has happened in Central London. It behoves the Government to look first at the nationalised industries and then at their own operations if they care about what is happening now.
Much could be done to help those who are already here. With my hon. Friends representing Central London constituencies, I suggested earlier this year that the rateable value limits for regulated tenancies should be extended above £400 in the middle of London since this would provide the security of tenure that tenants need in the middle of London just as they do elsewhere, and the level of £400 is unrealistically low in this part of the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) introduced a Bill, which I had the honour to sponsor with him, for more stringent regulations to prevent residential properties being used for what have become known as creeping hotels for itinerant tenants. This practice is turning residential blocks away from their supposed and original purpose into fly-by-night hotels, albeit some of them very expensive.
Another problem is that of improvement grants. We know that they are necessary, and we support them in principle. But we all know from our correspondence how often improvement grants lead to the landlord getting rid of the sitting tenant and pocketing the profit.

If improvement grants are to fulfil the purpose for which they were designed, strings must be attached to safeguard the position of sitting tenants.
We must also take steps against those who profiteer by keeping office and residential accommodation empty. Reference has been made already to the scandal of Centre Point. We all agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a useful night's work by announcing his proposals. However, in many ways the scandal of empty residential accommodation is even more important. The Pimlico Tenants and Residents Association and a councillor there have estimated that there are 1,000 empty residential flats in Pimlico alone. I do not know whether that figure is accurate. It may be exaggerated, though a walk round the area will reveal a great many empty residential units.
We all know why they are kept empty. Sometimes people have bought them and do not want to sell them now, or do not want to put them on the market for rent because they think that they will get a bigger price later, for rent or for sale. Landlords sometimes allow properties to dilapidate, to get the last remaining tenants out, and often that is quite an effective way of doing so. Landlords sometimes allow their properties to deteriorate in order to be able to say eventually that they have reached such a shocking and awful condition that they cannot be safe. It is then easier to get permission to redevelop them. This is a scandal, just as much, in its way, as Centre Point. Landlords who leave residential property empty for long periods for no good reason are jackals feeding off the hopes of would-be home owners and those least able to to look after themselves.
The Secretary of State has set an example in the way he proposes to deal with Centre Point. It may be that similar measures will be needed to take care of those landlords who are at present profiteering at the expense of those suffering from the housing shortage.
Finally, I come to the problem of rates. These have now reached in the middle of London, an intolerable level. It is of the utmost importance that the Government should push ahead as fast as possible with the reform of local government finance.


Their aim in doing this should be twofold. They should, first, look for ways of relieving local authorities of some of the charges which ought rightly to be borne by central Government. Those of us who sit for central London constituencies, hon. Members of both parties, have in mind, the Inner London Education Authority, which takes an enormous amount out of our rates. This is something that all of us would like to see financed centrally rather than by the boroughs. There are other examples. However, time presses and I must move on.
The second aim should be to find new sources of revenue for local authorities. The Greater London Council, as we know, would like to introduce a lottery. That has much to commend it and it would be extremely popular. Another source of revenue we should like to tap is the tourists who come to our city. They provide great benefit to the country's balance of payments. But tourists require a very high level of service to be maintained and one which would not exist if it were only the inhabitants of London who were living here. It is right that tourists should be taxed. The way that I should like to see this done is by a bed tax. But there are other ways.
Some of my proposals may to some people seem extreme. But we are faced with an extreme problem in central London. I put forward my ideas as a contribution to discussion and debate. If the Government can come up with better ideas for saving the middle of London, so much the better. But they must act quickly. London and Westminster are beleaguered cities. The population has declined; communities are breaking up. Familiar landmarks are disappearing. London and Westminster need to be saved. That is the message which ought to go out from both sides of the House tonight.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: We hear a great deal from the Government and their supporters about what ought to be done, but rather less about what they intend to do. While the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) has been speaking about what he regards as being his extreme remarks, one would have scarcely

credited that it is his friends upon Westminster City Council who brought forward the appalling Piccadilly plan and it is his friends upon the Greater London Council who are bringing forward the Covent Garden redevelopment plan, about which many of us have increasing doubts.
When one listens to the aspirations put forward from the Government side of the House and when one gets the general atmosphere of concern and intention to do something about it, one asks precisely why these things are occurring and why have the Government, until now, done nothing about it, until public outcry reaches a level at which they are forced to say something. Even now, what does the Minister say? He does not say, "I will introduce legislation now." He says, "In a few months' time, if things do not get better by some magic or other, I will think about it." But if Mr. Harry Hyams were to disappear overnight, the causes of the problem would not disappear. There would be other people and organisations The Government's attitude in saying that this is some mysterious thing but that if we all act in good will together we shall get rid of it, does not wash.
I must admit that I once almost favoured the Covent Garden redevelopment plan, because when one looks at the background of how this thing grew up, one can see that, apart from the pressures which are creating the present situation, the process by which we arrive at it is one which can be readily understood.
During the 1950s and the 1960s I was a member of the LCC Town Planning Committee. At that time we were trying to repair the ravages of the blitz and consequently we got into the habit of deciding that areas must be cleared away and replaced with something fresh. The comprehensive redevelopment plan arose in those circumstances. It was justified and and necessary at that time but now we are dealing with areas in which life already exists. At that time there was no life in these areas. We were creating life. But we are now dealing with lively, active, vigorous areas, and if we are not careful we will remove the life and create deserts. What might have been a suitable proposition for the 1950s and 1960s


is entirely unsuitable for the 1970s. Although I was originally attracted—possibly arising from my own background in it—to the tidy, rather nice proposition of the Covent Garden redevelopment plan, the more I looked into it the more worried I became about it because of my concern about the theatre.
It was in thinking about the impact of these plans upon the theatre that I began to realise that something was fundamentally wrong with our whole approach to planning in the present situation and with land values rising at the rates they have been. We have to look afresh therefore at the situation and ask whether we need fresh instruments of planning and a fresh approach to urban redevelopment.
I do not agree with some of the more strident screams of the Covent Garden Community Association, but basically it is right to be concerned at the possibility and the probability of the area deteriorating rather than improving under the present proposals with their emphasis upon road developments and so on. The developers of Piccadilly, Covent Garden and Cambridge Circus propose the demolition of the Criterion, the Lyceum, the Garrick, the Duchess the Adelphi, the Vaudeville and the Arts theatres. Some of these may be saved and others may be replaced. But if these theatres are to be dealt with in this way other theatres in the area are under threat also because the area itself is threatened.
Increased traffic means that roads will be widened driven underground or layered. It is already clear that the Cambridge will be surrounded by a sunken main road with pedestrial decks above and that the Coliseum the Duke of York's and the New Theatre will be pushed into a sort of cul-de-sac. The Shaftesbury Avenue theatres, the leases on which run out very shortly, are beginning to worry about the possibility of a Shaftesbury Avenue or a Soho redevelopment plan. We will then face perhaps the complete destruction of the world's most successful and most famous arts and entertainment complex. The complex has grown up organically but if we are not very careful we could dispose of it very quickly.
Meanwhile, on the South Bank the subcommittee of the GLC is meeting to dis-

cuss how it can artificially inject into the deserts below the Thames some of the life it is proposing to take away by the redevelopment plan in the West End. I do not want to detract from the fine buildings on the South Bank, but no one would call it a lively area. We face the curious situation of being worried about an area which contains no life while it is proposed to create the same sort of desert north of the Thames as we already have south of the Thames. That is sheer lunacy. We need a much more drastic change than the Minister indicated he is ready to bring to the matter.
At one time I thought that from the Covent Garden scheme might come something beneficial to the theatre, but on reflection I am persuaded that I was over-optimistic. What we need is not so much comprehensive development as community preservation schemes. We need to look at the whole matter afresh. We need not so much roadway development schemes as car-free areas or perhaps car-free times in certain areas.
It would pay us to keep private cars out of some parts of central London altogether and perhaps provide a State-supported taxi service and a free bus service. It might not cost us any more in the end. We should have to have a series of free car parks surrounding London so that people could bring their cars into a reasonable area, leave them and then enjoy in the central area the free transport or the taxi service, which I hope would be provided at a reasonable rate. That may be a matter of longer-term planning, but we must start thinking in the longer term if we are not to make greater mistakes in the shorter term.
The majority group on the Greater London Council is committed to the concrete desert idea, but the Labour Opposition is beginning to show strong signs of disenchantment with the whole proposition of going on with an outdated concept beyond its utility period. I plead guilty to that as much as anyone else. The Labour group is beginning to say that it is not committed to the present plans. I believe that it is about to announce its non-committal to any of the present plans for the West End. That would be a good development because, if, as I expect, the Labour Party wins


control of the GLC next spring, we may have an entirely fresh approach as compared with that of the Tory-controlled GLC.
The result of the public inquiry into the Covent Garden redevelopment plan is awaited. Meanwhile, it is reliably reported that dissent has broken out, even inside the Tory majority at County Hall, and that relations between Sir Desmond Plummer and Lady Dartmouth are at breaking point. [Interruption.] I note that I am not alone in having heard that rumour, which I welcome.
Leading GLC Tories have financial interests in the redevelopment of Covent Garden and would profit hugely if the whole area could be emptied of people and covered with unoccupied office blocks. We need a new approach. It needs to be drastic and quick, for as we talk, as the Minister talked earlier, about the need to see that people who live in these areas already are looked after, men are working overtime turning people out of the area, clearing old blocks to make way for roadways and so on. The whole process is already in the course of being carried out.
While we allow that sort of thing to happen, we are not really dealing with the problem, but are only talking about it. If the Minister were to say that instead of promising to legislate in a few weeks' or a few months' time we must stop this whole procedure now, we would really have cause to praise him. The Minister should say, "This kind of thing has gone on long enough, let us bring it to an end tonight".

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has spoken with his great knowledge of London and his previous service on the London County Council. I know that he would be the first to allow the right of any hon. Member from another part of the country to speak in this debate because, as the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, London is not just a matter for London Members. It is a national matter and one of great concern. There are many aspects of London which are every bit as much the concern of my constituents in Bridgwater and West Somerset as

they are of the inhabitants of London itself as our capital and our chosen visiting place on so many occasions.
There are two aspects of London which must concern those who come from other parts of the country, both what is happening here and the fact that what is happening here is preventing other things happening in the rest of the country. Perhaps I may speak first to my right hon. Friend on the subject of offices and what is happening in the City.
My right hon. Friend spoke very fairly of what we hope will be a major development. We look forward to the City of London becoming the financial capital of Europe. We trust that it will become a meeting place for many European institutions, firms and associations. Obviously there will be a need for capacity to accommodate them, and it would be tragic if we failed on that account, but at the same time one should not under-estimate the impact of the escalating costs and escalating rents on many existing tenants of commercial premises in the City of London.
We know that the theatre is living on borrowed time because of its leases, and many firms in the City of London are also working on borrowed time. Many of them have long leases at low rents and when those expire there is not the slightest prospect that they will be able to remain where they are. My first request to my right hon. Friend is that some attempt should be made to assess how much of the office accommodation will be surplus once those leases expire and how many of these firms really need to remain in London.
One is aware of the needs of stockbrokers to be near the Stock Exchange. One is aware of the need of commodity traders perhaps to be near the Baltic Exchange. But in these days of improving technical facilities and communications one knows how stockbrokers have moved their accounts departments out of the City and merely maintain what one might call the sharp end of the operation in close proximity to the Stock Exchange.
The impact of improved techniques and communications will surely have a significant effect and should be taken into account in assessing what the real future office requirement is for the inner


City of London activity, and here I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) when my right hon. Friend was out of the Chamber and what was said to one of my right hon. Friend's colleagues at Question Time today about the transfer of both the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation from their present headquarters. If a firm is in commercial difficulties or is finding difficulty in producing an adequate return, one of the first things that it does is to look at its properties. In view of the financial situation of those two organisations, surely they cannot justify the costs of their present premises. I speak on behalf of what one might call the outside London Members who would be more than happy to help to accommodate some of their requirements.
I first took an interest in the problem of Government offices moving out of London when I discovered that the Egg Marketing Board had its headquarters in Shaftesbury Avenue. There seems to be very little logic in the decisions of the Government and nationalised industries in the location for their offices.
I said that London was of interest not only to the citizens of London but to everyone in the country, and therefore it matters very much what London is to be and what London is to become. We are very much concerned with the future of our industries, and our biggest industry is tourism. The biggest attraction that exists for tourists in this country is London. What do they come to find? What do they expect in London? Is it Buckingham Palace, the changing of the guard or the parks? One of the things above all which they come to find is that marvellous word "serendipity". There is so much more to London than simply the famous landmarks. One can go round making pleasant discoveries, which is surely the correct description of serendipity. There are so many interesting corners of London which one can find, and it is so much of this that is being destroyed at the moment by the concrete revolution.
I endorse what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the hon. Member for Putney said about the London theatre. A recent survey of tourists to this country identified that for

60 per cent. of them the London theatre was a major factor in their choosing to visit and spend some time in London. It is one of the products in which we excel by any standard. If I may put it in the most total commercial sense, it is a product which we can sell to the world above all competition. It is something which will not have the facility and will not be able to display its wares unless urgent action is taken.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall suggested that it might be possible to tighten up the conditions under which buildings which are redeveloped must include, if a theatre exists on the site, a new theatre in its place. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that because of the enormous capital expense, audiences would be priced out of the theatres if true development costs were involved. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be a condition that cheap prices or rents would be charged.
That is not a realistic proposition. I do not see how one can introduce that system. However, some quite exceptional measure will have to be taken if we are to preserve an essential element in the fabric of what in its totality is the charm and uniqueness of London at the moment I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman the serious consideration that we should list the theatres of London as historic buildings and give them special protection. It is in their variety and number that the strength exists.
The hon. Member for Putney has listed the theatres which are threatened. Quite apart from the ones which are specifically threatened with demolition, we all know that they are all, as one of their deputations on VAT pointed out, living on borrowed time. They are all on the back end of leases at fairly low rents which have no possibility under normal commercial circumstances of renewal. Something in excess of one-third of the theatres in London are threatened within the next decade. Their commercial existence cannot continue unless quite exceptional methods are taken for their preservation. It is because of the theatres, together with so much else of the fabric of London which we respect and value, that those of us who come to London as visitors urge the importance of attention and action whilst they still remain to be preserved.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) will forgive me if I do not follow him in my remarks as time is pressing. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I agree with nearly all he said in this connection. I have an interest as apart from being a Londoner born and bred I happen to live in Piccadilly Circus at the top of the Hay-market. Not only do I happen to live there but I eat and do my washing there. I know the district well. I am one who will be affected adversely by the change in the character of the area.
The scheme put forward for the redevelopment of the Circus is ludicrous on a number of grounds which were pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in his opening remarks, particularly as regards the detrimental effect of the increase in traffic through the Circus on public transport. The Chairman of London Transport has roundly condemned the proposals as they will make the job of London Transport far worse than at present.
Whatever we may think about traffic in central London, we should bear in mind that the idea of putting pedestrians somewhere near first or second floor level so that they can get a view of the traffic racing through the Circus and at the same time be suffocated by the fumes rising up would not appeal to local residents, Londoners generally, provincials or tourists who use the Circus as an entertainment and leisure centre.
A further condemnation of the scheme is that it is bound to mean the loss of virtually all the small shops, businesses and entertainment centres in the area. Some of them may not appeal to right hon. and hon. Members or to the people who live there, but they appeal to those who use the Piccadilly Circus area as an entertainment centre. I hope it will never be true, particularly if the scheme goes through, that we shall be singing "Goodbye Piccadilly" and meaning it. However, that could be true it the scheme goes through.
The alternatives are to improve the premises locally and to reduce the amount of traffic going through the Circus. I do not know whether it will be possible ultimately to make it a pedestrian-only precinct at ground level. This would

obviously have to await the overdue consideration of transport both private and public, in the central London area. Nevertheless, most hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that comprehensive redevelopment of this kind is not good enough.
A further aspect which needs consideration is that, as long as the future of Piccadilly Circus and other parts of central London remains in doubt and plans can be put forward and rejected because of lack of amenities and consideration for people living in the place and others who use it, there will be planning blight on the area. Landlords will have no incentive to maintain their properties, perfectly sound properties which could be refurbished and modernised.
The fact that we now have a Piccadilly Plan mark II is no real consolation. It was decided in secret. There was no public participation. It is typical of the way this development is being put through. It was a sordid and inglorious attempt to influence the course of debate. All that the developers have done is to assure us that the Criterion Theatre will be preserved, and we are to be fobbed off with a fountain. I regard that as rather ridiculous. Surely the Minister recognises that several elements are essential to any consideration of future development plans wherever they may occur in central London.
The first is the provision of reasonable cost housing. If we have Barbican type schemes throughout central London, we shall drive out ordinary people because they will be unable to afford the rents.
The second consideration is that, whatever we do about traffic, we should not have motorway type roads in central London. That would mean the traffic rushing through central London. The poor motorist who wished to go to the theatre, when he wanted to get off the motorway would probably have to drive half a mile or more beyond the point at which he wanted to get off it, go to a car park and walk half a mile back to the theatre. That would do more to ruin the theatre than anything else.
The third consideration which should guide the Minister concerns transport—not only public transport but taxis, because together they are the main means of getting around central London. It is


instructive to note that there is no compulsion on developers in a comprehensive development scheme to take account of the interests of public transport. They have to take account of the absurd nine-year-old Ministry requirement to increase road capacity in this part of central London by 50 per cent. However, to stick to that these days is illogical.
I have already mentioned the improvement of existing premises. The Minister could do a great deal to help in that respect.
Finally, I fully support my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby on the need to call a halt to and have a breathing space to look at redevelopment in central London as a whole. Even if the Minister does not accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion of a planning inquiry commission, nevertheless he could call in all planning applications and developments in central London, including the even more preposterous scheme at the junction of Charing Cross Road and Shaftesbury Avenue which will ruin Cambridge Circus by which Charing Cross Road will become a motorway and we shall have another Centre Point—heaven forbid. The Minister, or one of his civil servants, in a letter to one of my friends who lives in Broad Court, Bow Street, said that the Minister normally only calls in planning applications
where issues of national rather than local importance are involved. In this case, it does not seem that the issues are such as to justify the Secretary of State's intervention.
I respectfully submit to the Minister that if he considers it important enough to call in the application for the Piccadilly Circus redevelopment he ought also to do it for all other central London redevelopments. Then and only then will he be able to take full account not only of the residents and the local action groups in Piccadilly and Covent Garden, but of all the people who use the area as a leisure centre and regard it as a place worthy of our national heritage.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I wish to draw attention to what I consider to be a national disgrace. I refer to the several derelict bombsites in central London which are still in the same condition now, 30 years after, as they were when they were left by the civil defence authorities after a rough clean up

during the war. Some of them, but too few, have been converted into small amenity gardens, beautiful little places greatly sought after as places of rest by city workers, but others—most of them—have been abandoned until, presumably, development permission is given for the area in which they are situated. Even if development has been delayed legitimately, there is really no excuse for these bombsites not to be cleaned up and used at least in the service of the people who live and work in the city. There is no reason at all why they should not be so used instead of being simply eyesores left for foreign visitors to gape at.
The body responsible, directly or indirectly, for this state of affairs is that archaic institution known as the Corporation of the City of London, which gets a great deal of its wealth and its reputation as the financial centre of the world from the labour effort and talent of hundreds of thousands of people who live outside its boundaries but who come into the city to work, including thousands of my own constituents. They get precious little in return for their efforts, and I would suggest that the City Corporation, which has spent so much money on things like festivals, and on the extension to the Central Criminal Court—on which it spent £7 million—might use some of its money on cleaning up these bombsites and making them available for the enjoyment of the people.

9.38 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: We have heard many gracious and elegant speeches in this House this evening and I am sorry that my political neighbour the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) has had to leave because I was going to suggest that he should come even closer to me since the logic of much of what he was saying would bring him right across the Floor of the House.
It is absolute nonsense to talk about the need for more housing, mixed communities, facilities for people with modest incomes to live in central London, within the context of Conservative philosophy and support for land dealers and the representatives of profiteering speculators. That is what is wrong with the centre of London, and it is farcical nonsense for hon. Gentleman to make these sloppy speeches about beautiful theatres and


lovely little communities, when they evade the basic causes of the economic disease that afflicts the middle London.
We should take a decision that public development is the only form of development in the centre of our cities, with the public ownership of land, that can make any sense. I say this and it is no use the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) protesting, because he is complaining of many of the developments in central London which are symptomatic of the work of his friends and the supporters of the Conservative Party, and I think we have heard a great deal of humbug tonight on this question.

Mr. Tom King: rose—

Mrs. Jeger: No. I had to put up with the hon. Gentleman, and he will have to put up with me.
Great cities can absorb an occasional mistake, but in central London we are having a succession of mistakes arising out of separate decisions, and it is because we have so many contiguous mistakes in the centre of London that our great city is in danger of humiliation.
There is in my own constituency the problem of the redevelopment of the Hatton Garden-Leather Lane area. I hope that hon. Members opposite will spare a thought for the small business men in that area who trade in diamonds. I do not know why I should get up and speak for small business men, but I will. They are an important part of my constituency and they are associated, of course, with ancient crafts such as that of the silversmith. They are an essential part of the pattern of the area. They are desperately afraid that the development scheme for the area behind Gamage's in Leather Lane and Hatton Garden will eliminate them from that end of my constituency.
I have no time to refer to the ravages which have been made in Bloomsbury. Many of them have gone too far to be retrieved now. But I make no apology for mentioning once again the proposal to take another seven and a half acres of Bloomsbury for the National Library. The Secretary of State told me last November that he could not consider an alternative idea which had been suggested by Camden Council, because the matter

was closed. But since then he has sent out Circular 80/71 suggesting the need for more consultation between local authorities and Government Departments in development. I therefore very much hope that he will look again at Camden Council's objection to the scheme.
Camden Council's objections arise not simply because seven and a half acres are being taken away but because those acres are contiguous to the Piccadilly and Covent Garden schemes. We shall thus get a whole area from Euston Station southwards of site after site which will have been deprived of its normal purposes. There is no reason why the National Library should be adjacent to the British Museum. The Dainton Committee stated that only 1½ per cent. of readers who went to the Museum Library also went to look at the artefacts.
There seems to be an attitude of sheer inertia and lack of imagination in designing this site. In Paris, I have not heard anyone complain that the Louvre is not cheek by jowl with the Bibliothèque Nationale. Scholars are not cripples. It would not do them any harm to walk. The Secretary of State referred sympathetically to the Dockland development. It would be marvellous to have the new National Library in Dockland. It would give a focus of culture rather lacking in that area. It would bring people to the area on a diversity of errands and would not ravage the housing position as it would in this very crowded part of central London.
I have the ignominy of being Member of Parliament for Centre Point. I am glad of what the Secretary of State said, but I wish that he had spelt out a little more what his intentions are. I understand that last year 8 million square feet of new office development was permitted for central London, yet the Greater London Council estimates that 7 million square feet of office accommodation is empty. Where are we going? What are we doing with all these offices? We keep nagging the workers about inflation and non-productivity. I can think of nothing more inflationary than a lot of people sitting in a lot of offices—or, even more inflationary, people who are not sitting in empty offices.
The whole public is outraged by the Centre Point scandal.
There have been several references to this in the Press. The Evening News of 23rd January caught the public mood when it said:
Centre Point sticks up in London like a sore thumb. At a time when people are searching for homes and offices its seven-year empty existence is a gigantic symbol of antisocial behaviour. The fact that it has risen in value from £5 million to £20 million makes it a gigantic symbol of the fact that in property in these days you can make a fortune by doing absolutely nothing.
Yet the Government will bully the railwaymen, the sewerage workers, bully those with quite legitimate pay claims who want more money for doing good and useful work and contributing to the community.
But these people can sit by and do absolutely nothing and see their property increase in value from £5 million to £20 million. I hope that the Minister will soon be able to tell us more of his intentions. He will know that he is likely to be receiving soon from the Camden Council a request for compulsory purchase order on the 36 maisonettes which form part of this empty building. It is an obscene outrage that with the present housing shortage and misery in a constituency like mine, over the years there should have been 36 empty maisonettes at the top of Centre Point.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will grant that compulsory purchase order. I should like to see the rest of Centre Point given over to London University as a hostel for students. It would be very suitable for that. They can put beds in just as easily as clerks can put desks in. It is a very good neighbourhood. If the developer loses out on the deal no one would be more pleased than I.
I must refer to Cambridge Circus and what is happening there. I am sorry that we are not to have a reply tonight, but I am sure that the Minister with his usual courtesy will write to me about Trentishoe Mansions at Cambridge Circus. Recently the GLC which owns these flats, which have been providing not marvellous but adequate housing in the centre of London, started to move people out. It has now completed this operation and has smashed up the plumbing and destroyed a lot of the internal fixtures in the unworldly belief that this will stop

squatters moving in, which just shows how much some of these people know about the facts of life.
This site I understand has been earmarked for sale to Town and City Property Company. Half of the GLC says it has not been actually sold, the developers say it is as good as sold. The only result of this absurd situation is that an old planning consent, which has been in the pipeline since 1959, is being invoked so that, if you can believe it, Mr. Speaker, another office block one and a half times as big at Centre Point can be built 300 yards away from the empty skeleton that is Centre Point!
This is not planning. Let me be non-controversial for a moment. The whole House must agree that this is an idiocy of planning resources and an encouragement to inflation and profiteering of the worst type. I would like to suggest that plans for Cambridge Circus be held up and that Covent Garden should be put on ice—and I am sorry that time does not permit me to speak more fully about Covent Garden, part of which is in my constituency and about which I have had many discussions with the local people who are to be the first victims of the present proposals, who will be the first to be chased out of the neighbourhood which has a rooted village reality and to which the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster paid such a moving tribute. I hope he will try to move some of the speculators who are making money out of these people who are to be thrown out of Covent Garden.
There are not only people whose homes are threatened. It is no use our being told that there will be a lot of new housing. I have been following very carefully the problem of new housing in Central London. Whenever I see advertisements of flats in my constituency I make a point of ringing up and asking what the rents are, and I have worked out that for a new two-room flat in my constituency the average rent is between £30 and £40 a week, and £50 a week in the summer. It is obvious that people are trying to cash in on tourists, who will spend that sort of money for a brief period, but it is not possible to spend it and provide for a family's living, even if a family could live in two rooms.
What will happen following the Government's abominable Housing Finance Bill? In the fixing of fair rents one of the criteria which rent officers are supposed to take into account is the prevailing rent in the neighbourhood. Goodness knows what sort of rents will be payable in the centre of London. Therefore, if hon. Gentlemen on the Government side mean what they say about preserving communities, about wanting people to have homes in central London, I hope they will do some homework about the economics and about the non-profitability of this and recognise that, just as developers are ready to leave slum clearance to the local authorities, developers should also leave other schemes to the local authorities, because they have absolutely no contribution to make to the solution of housing problems in central London at present. I am concerned with the people most in need of homes, and the people most in need of homes are not the people who can afford the developers' rents in central London.
So I end with just a few suggestions which I make with no humility because I have served on St. Pancras Council and the London County Council and I have been chairman of the housing committee in St. Pancras and I know a little bit about these problems. It is absolutely wrong to blame architects for all the horrible slabs which are being erected. The architects themselves are conditioned by the demands which are imposed on them to get the maximum square footage, and the maximum profits out of the sites, and that cripples any artistic or human instincts which even some modern architects may still have. We cannot blame the architects and the planners for what is basically an economic problem.
I therefore want to see land in the centre of our cities as first candidate for public ownership in any policy for the national public ownership of all land. Why should the private developer care about the destruction of neighbourhoods and the banishment of deeply-rooted residents or of small shops in preference to the building of offices, hotels and, luxury apartments which produce money for him? I think he is quite right, because he is in business to make money. It is we here who should take the responsibility, and it is for Parliament and the

local authorities to call a halt and to impose all this distortion of human life and the disasters of the destruction which is going on. If we do not, posterity will not forgive us.
So let us try to do one or two things immediately which I think even the present misguided Government might help us to do. One is not to start with traffic, because I think that was what was basically wrong with the Piccadilly and the Covent Garden plans. I should like to see the planners start by seeing how far they can keep traffic out, not how far they can enlarge the facilities to bring in more and more traffic.
On the question of hotel development it would be more useful socially if the Minister could pay some attention to provision for staff in hotels, because hotels tend to generate jobs without generating homes. It is all very well to have a few attics in which Spanish bachelors can live while they are spending a few months trying to learn English, but where does the middle-aged chef with three children live? These people are my constituents. They work long hours in Soho and they can walk home, but in future they will have to walk further and further.
Third, we must put the whole emphasis of housing development in central London on to the local authorities. No private developers—again I do not blame them, it is not their job—are able to put up housing which can be afforded by the people on our waiting lists. The number of homeless families in London is increasing. We must consider the plight of people who are moving so slowly up the waiting list. It is no use saying that if they cannot afford to live in central London they should not live there. Many of them are tied by their jobs to central London.
I have a very interesting constituency. Living in it are men who take out the first trains in the morning from and bring back the last trains at night to King's Cross, Euston and St. Pancras Stations. I have in my constituency Hansard workers, and printers who leave the daily newspaper offices at four or five o'clock in the morning. I even have a large collection—perhaps the largest—of Members of Parliament who find it convenient to live not too far from their work.
It is impossible to get a balanced community providing houses at all income levels for a diversity of workers unless we accept that it can be done only by public authority housing. I am not didactic about it being local council housing. I should like to see our Co-operative Movement taking a much greater part, as it does in Sweden, in providing housing accommodation.
We shall never settle this problem if we fail to recognise the economics of the situation. Economics distorts the scale of our planning and makes people feel that they are just pawns to be pushed around by firms of developers. That has a disastrous effect on the neighbourhood, completely depersonalising and destroying it. Although I know that the Government—which I hope will not be there much longer—cannot out of their philosophy deal with this problem in the basic way in which it should be dealt with, I appreciate that the Secretary of State has made many courageous and helpful decisions. Even if we have to leave our philosophy on one side, some of the practicalities can be dealt with.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be a bit meaner in the future with office

development certificates in London. I hope that he will be generous when he gets the application from Camden Council for the compulsory purchase order on Centre Point, and that the application will provide a useful precedent for other local councils to be as adventurous as Camden in taking constructive action about the scandal of empty property in a situation of desperate housing need.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: There is not much time available so I will discard what I had hoped to say and make one brief point. We have spoken this evening about many developments. There is one on our doorstep which threatens the scenery and harmony of Parliament Square itself. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will use all his earnest endeavours to make sure that this monolithic piece of Teutonic ugliness is not created across the road from the Palace of Westminster.

The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Walter Clegg): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Asian Development Bank (Additional Contributions) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time the following:
That the Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Neither of the orders which we are considering together is likely to be regarded as controversial, except conceivably by hon. Gentlemen opposite who always oppose any increase in aid funds. They certainly will not be regarded as controversial by the Opposition.
We do not have many opportunities to discuss aid matters and we should make the maximum possible use of this opportunity. I hope that the Minister in winding up the debate will give us more of the background to the orders than is available in the explanatory notes. May I take the opportunity to plead with him to maximise the background information which is provided by the Government when they bring forward orders on other legislative instruments before the House?
It is important that we should be given the maximum background information before the discussion of an order because there is not involved in an order the sort of to-ing and fro-ing that takes place when the House discusses legislation proper. It is difficult on the basis of explanatory notes to make out what is the case for the provisions. It would be helpful if it were a Government practice when bringing an order before the House to table a much fuller explanation than is normal or to volunteer background notes to the House informally. I do not intend this as a criticism of the Minister since what I am suggesting is not common practice. However, I believe that it would be a good thing if it were to become common practice.
I can pass briefly over the order relating to guarantees. The rise in the scale

of guarantees for which the Minister is asking is certainly large—from £5 million to £25 million. I understand that this is due to the necessity to cover both the increase in the contribution by Hong Kong and any other dependent territory which might make a contribution to the Bank and also any loans—there is already at least one—from the Asian Development Bank to the Government of a dependent territory.
It is unlikely in present circumstances that the British guarantee would have to operate. However, I hope the Minister will not forget that the British connection with Hong Kong can hardly be regarded as assured for all times. Private investors in Hong Kong recognise the peculiar nature of the risk and make sure that they get out their profits fat and fast. I should not like to think that private investors were being assisted in private maximisation payments by ADB lending which, in the end, might have to be paid back by the British taxpayer if the Chinese, with or without our consent, ever moved into Hong Kong.
Could we be told tonight what the ADB loan to Hong Kong will be used for—whether it is to be used for the benefit of well-off investors in Hong Kong or for the millions of our subjects in Hong Kong who over the years have had a raw deal compared with the citizens of most British colonies? Secondly, will he assure the House that Hong Kong's dangerous position will be borne in mind whenever he takes on a guarantee of contributions either by Hong Kong to the Bank or loans from the Bank to the Government of Hong Kong?
The other order is the main order. It will allow us to participate in an increase in the capital stock of the Bank to the tune of 150 per cent. of our present contribution.
I have a number of relatively detailed points to put to the Minister to which I should like replies, either tonight or later. The first is that when Britain first undertook to make a contribution to the Bank it was at first intended to be very low. I believe that the figure was 10 million dollars instead of the ultimate figure of 30 million dollars. It was the Americans who pushed us up from the lower figure. They twisted our arms. My recollection


is there was a quid pro quo. We tried to get the Americans to agree to chip in some of their money to the IDC. I do not know whether that ever materialised or whether it was in the nature of a formal commitment. It was thought at the time to be reasonable that, since we were making a larger contribution in an area where the primary interest was that of the United States, in return they should make a contribution to our equivalent organisation operating in West Africa. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether anything came of that.
Secondly, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say just how clear it is that the Americans will come up with their money. If Congress is going through a sufficiently deep fit of the blues about aid at the moment it is possible that the Americans will not come up with their 300 million dollars. If they do not and if one or two other significant contributors do not, I understand that our obligation will not be activated since it is subject to a billion dollar minimum "trigger". Nevertheless, since we are agreeing to this order, the Minister ought to tell us whether the two major donors, Japan and the United States, are fairly certain to agree to make their contributions.
Thirdly, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister about an item which appears under the heading of the Asian Development Bank in the Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman presented to the House recently. We are proposing to spend £1,000 on a gift to the new building of the ADB in Manila. That item is classified as overseas aid. It is not overseas aid. I do not know what we have it in mind to give. It may be some crystal ashtrays for the new building. Nevertheless, such a gift is not overseas aid.
The Minister has a difficult job defending his funds against the ravages of other Departments which want to dip their hands into his pocket. The right hon. Gentleman does not always succeed. Only today I have come across an example where he appears not to have succeeded to the tune of £400,000 in respect of rent for accommodation in this country provided for institutions of an aid character. This was classified improperly as overseas aid, as was admitted in an answer that I received from the Secretary

of State for the Environment. That is a much larger item than that about which I ask asking, but I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity to defend the frontiers of the aid programme from the attempts of other Departments to get their hands on what they regard as the easiest money going in Whitehall at the moment.
Turning to more substantial matters about the Bank in general, there is the point about China's relationship to it. As long as Taiwan was in the United Nations, the position of the two Chinas in the Bank in Manila followed from the position in New York. Now that Taiwan is in the United Nations no longer, it is time to reconsider the position. China is not likely to want to join the ADB, given its strongly capitalist nature. But the presence of Taiwan, especially if Taiwan continues to be treated as China in the Bank, will be a needless irritant to good relations in the area. I hope that Britain will take the view that Taiwan in the Bank is only Taiwan and is not the Republic of China.
I come to general policy matters and the philosophy of the Bank. As I said, we shall not have many opportunities of discussing aid. In particular, we shall not have an opportunity, presumably for some years, of a further replenishment of the funds of the Asian Development Bank. Therefore, this is the occasion when the Minister should give to us an account of the policy that the Bank has been pursuing over the last five years and the policies which the British representatives within the board of directors have been pressing upon the Bank, if any.
From its inception, the Bank has laid great stress on banking principles. It has not considered its soft loan operations as a large or significant part of its work. That has meant that it has been backing bankable projects, and these in an area where a great deal of infrastructure work still needs to be done. What the British representatives in the Bank should be doing is pushing the Bank towards social development, without which the societies of Asia will not face up to the challenge of modern conditions. Secondly, we should press the Bank to go for projects with a regional significance. When I say "regional" I do not take as a region the whole of the area covered by the


Bank, because that is not a natural region. But we should press for the Bank to back projects which at least cover more than one country. Purely national operations can quite easily be financed by bilateral devices.
Then there is the matter of Japanese tying. On several occasions the Japanese have attempted to tie not only their contribution to the Bank but also the recycling of their contribution to the Bank. The Japanese economy is perfectly strong enough for them not to have to insist on that kind of thing. I hope that within the Bank institutions we are pressing against that kind of device in line with the fairly progressive policy which we pursued on tying elsewhere.
Britain is not a big contributor to Asian Development Bank funds. Our contribution works out at only about 3 per cent, of total resources. But, just because of that, it might be possible for us to play the rôle of a provocative advocate of new ideas in the Bank, to challenge the now rather staid ways of an established institution. We on the Opposition side of the House are glad to support the enlargement of the Bank's resources, but we hope that the Overseas Development Administration will review its policies for the Bank to get it to lay greater stress on the alleviation of the worst poverty rather than on the further development of the already prosperous sectors of the countries of member States.

10.13 p.m.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) for what he said. I agree with his first remarks about the need for as much information as possible. My objective in so ordering affairs that the hon. Gentleman led in the debate was in order that I should have the opportunity, if possible, to try to answer any questions that he might have and give any information he might require.
Taking the two orders in the same order as the hon. Gentleman did, the second one, as he knows, is intended to increase the limit on the guarantees which Her Majesty's Government may provide under Section 3(2) of the Overseas Aid Act, 1968. The necessity to

provide these guarantees to the Bank arises from the Articles of Agreement.
These require that the United Kingdom should give an undertaking of responsibility for all obligations which may be incurred by a member country for whose external relations we are responsible. The legal necessity is concerned with the status of member countries of the Bank which are dependencies. Although it is quite impossible for either him or me to look into the crystal ball and always to make sure what the future holds—it would be very convenient if we could—Ibelieve in practical terms that the second order is a formality because the Government have made no payments under the provisions of the 1968 Act and, although the hon. Member envisaged certain circumstances in which we should do so, I find it very difficult to envisage the likelihood of our having to honour this obligation.
The increase from £5 million to £25 million is quite considerable and it is necessary first to cover a bank loan of 21½ million dollars to the Government of Hong Kong for a water desalination plant. The loan was approved by the board of directors in April but it cannot become effective until the necessary undertaking of responsibility by Her Majesty's Government has been given. That is the purpose of the order. The hon. Gentleman was asking who would benefit from the project. He will know better than most people that water supply is a very serious problem for Hong Kong. The plant is expected to be completed by the end of 1975 and it will provide 40 million gallons a day which will be of great value to the colony as a whole. The Government of Hong Kong have said they intend to subscribe to 1,200 additional shares at a value of 12 million dollars and there is Hong Kong's initial subscription of 8 million dollars, both also subject to a guarantee by Her Majesty's Government.
These obligations would diminish as the paid-in portions of Hong Kong's subscriptions are made over to the Bank and the maximum obligation on Her Majesty's Government in all these respects is about £16½ million. The draft order seeks approval for a rather higher upper limit and we believe that the margin should enable us to guarantee


any further Bank lending to Hong Kong and the subscription of any eligible British dependency which might apply for membership of the Bank.
If the House approves the order my right hon. Friend would make it immediately so that with the guarantee by the Government the Bank would be able to execute the loan documents with the Government of Hong Kong for the financing of the project. We shall be able also to give the necessary undertaking in respect of Hong Kong's additional subscription.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a number of other questions about what is perhaps the more important of the two orders, that allowing us to increase the subscription to the Asian Development Bank. He began by asking certain questions about the Bank. As he knows it was established in 1965–66 in order to lend funds to promote investment and to provide technical assistance to its developing member countries. We believe—and I know the hon. Member shares the view—that these are two important objectives. We also believe—and I know he shares this view, too—that its development function is extremely important and the need to develop in the part of the world which it covers is very great. We are anxious that the Bank should pursue policies which will allow that development function to expand as fully as possible to the benefit of the countries which are in great need of development in that part of the world. The first order will ensure that Britain plays her part in the general replenishment of the Bank's resources.
The hon. Gentleman naturally asked to what extent I was confident that the United States and other members would play their part as well. There is one member Government, and only one, who have notified the Bank that they do not intend to take up the additional shares allocated to them, but I am confident that all the others, including the United States and Japan, intend to subscribe the additional capital which will be necessary and to make sure that the Bank will achieve its initial objective of having 100,000 of the 150,000-odd additional shares subscribed for, and therefore make effective the contribution that each individual country makes.

Mr. George Cunningham: Who are the one member Government to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Wood: The country to which I was referring was Sweden, but not, obviously, the countries with which the hon. Gentleman and I are most concerned—the United States, Japan, West Germany, and the other major donors.
At the fourth annual meeting last year the board of governors instructed the board of directors to report on the resources position. The board of directors took into account the Bank's operations, the desirable scale of expansion in the period up to 1975, and the availability of resources from the initial subscriptions that have been made. The projected cumulative loan commitments up to the end of 1975 on ordinary operations were set at over 1,500 million dollars. That represents nearly twice the committable resources now available to the Bank. Therefore, the directors recommended an increase in the Bank's authorised capital of 150 percent., from 1,100 million dollars to 2,750 million dollars. At the same time they recommended that only one-fifth of the increase should be in the form of paid-in shares, the remaining four-fifths being callable capital. Of the paid-in portion, 40 per cent. is payable in gold or convertible currency and 60 per cent. in national currency.
Last year the board of governors adopted a resolution, on which the draft order is based. The United Kingdom will subscribe to 4,500 additional shares, 150 per cent. of our original holding, at a value of 45 million US dollars. The paid-in proportion of our subscription, for 900 shares, one-fifth of the total, will be equivalent to 9 million dollars, of which 3·6 million dollars will be in cash and the rest, 5·4 million dollars, in promissory notes. These cash payments will be spread over the three years 1973–75. Therefore, we shall not make our first commitment until after 1975. I have already mentioned that the increase will not become effective until100,000 of the shares have been subscribed for. The Bank hopes that that will have happened by 30th September next.
If the House approves the orders, as I hope it will, we shall be able to notify the Bank that we are ready to make the additional subscription. The order which


provides for the necessary payments will not be made by my right hon. Friend until the Government become bound by the coming into effect of the capital increase.
The hon. Gentleman raised two further points. One was the question of the United States contributing to the operations of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. There was some discussion earlier about that as a kind of quid pro quo. I shall examine the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
The other matter which the hon. Gentleman mentioned was my obligation, which I readily recognise, to see that aid funds are used in the proper direction and for the proper purposes, which he and I share. I should like to look into any alleged improper use of funds and will communicate with him on that subject.
I hope that with that explanation the House will feel able to approve these two draft orders, the Hong Kong order being urgent in the sense of the need to make arrangements for increasing the water salination plant and the other being less urgent but urgent in the sense that the Bank is anxious to know what the position will be and that Her Majesty's Government will be ready when the time comes to make the order, dependent on the draft order before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Asian Development Bank (Additional Contributions) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS DUTY (PERSONAL RELIEFS) ORDER

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) Order 1970 (Amendment) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 838), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Higgins.]

10.28 p.m.

Dr. John Gilbert: I will not seek to detain the House long. I under-

stand that the changes incorporated in the order are basically drafting changes from the original order to which it refers. However, there are one or two points on which I should be grateful for explanation, although I have not given as much notice as I should have liked.
Paragraph 5 states:
In article 2(2) of the Principal Order for the words "been so resident" at the end of the third line thereof, there shall be substituted the words "been outside the United Kingdom".
I should appreciate an explanation of the distinction intended in that amendment.
Secondly, at various places running through the original order there is a catalogue of activities which if undertaken are liable to attract duty to the imported goods. In every case, with one exception, they read:
the goods shall not be, or be offered, exposed or advertised to be, lent, hired, pledged, given away, exchanged, sold or otherwise disposed of in the United Kingdom;…".
There is a difference with respect to the same catalogue of discouraged or forbidden activities under Article 6(1) of the original Order where "lent" does not appear. I should be grateful for an explanation on that.
Finally, paragraph 13 of the amending order appears to bring about a substantial amendment of Article 15(2) of the original order. We shall be grateful if the Financial Secretary will address himself to that matter. None of these points is of major significance but we should like a little enlightenment about them.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): If the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) and I were upstairs in Committee on the Finance Bill, where we were only a few moments ago and where we shall no doubt return, I should have simply moved this order by saying that it was essentially a question of drafting.
The hon. Gentleman has raised some specific points and perhaps it would be to the convenience of the House if I briefly outline the purpose of the order and then seek to answer the more specific questions which he has put to me.
The order was made by the Commissioners on 1st June under the enabling powers of Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1968, to come into operation on 1st July this year. As it restricts relief conferred


by a previous order, Section 7(5) requires it to be approved by resolution of the House within 28 days after 1st June.
A number of duty and tax reliefs for tourists, and so on, have developed over many years. These were originally granted extra-statutorily, but they were formalised and made statutory under Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1968, which gives the Commissioners power to make orders conferring duty and tax reliefs on persons entering this country. The Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) Order, 1970, which the present order amends, is one of the orders made under those powers and deals with reliefs for temporary visitors, for immigrants, and for visiting forces.
Experience has brought to light some defects of wording in the 1970 order, as. a result of which it may not in all respects have fulfilled the intention of covering, no more and no less, the scope of the former extra-statutory concessions to which it relates. The purpose of the present order is to correct these defects.
Briefly, its effect is to make clear: first, that a person is treated as having been resident abroad for a given period—one of the conditions of eligibility for relief as a visitor to this country—only if he has actually been outside the United Kingdom for that period; secondly, that the goods may not be treated as having been owned and used abroad by the importer for a given period—one of the conditions of eligibility for relief for long-term visitors and people changing residence—unless the importer himself has been abroad for that period; thirdly, that the condition—which applies to all goods admissible duty and tax-free under the order—that the goods shall not be offered for sale, hire, and so on, also precludes their being "exposed or advertised" for such purpose; and, fourthly, that relief allowed to members of visiting forces on the goods they import applies equally to goods they remove from bonded warehouses.
It is because, as a matter of legal construction, the first three of these changes may restrict existing reliefs that the affirmative resolution is required. But there will be little or no change in practice since, as I have explained, the order is intended merely to make the law say what until recently it had been under-

stood to have said. This also applies to the fourth change which, being an extension of an existing relief, would not itself require affirmative resolution, but we thought it convenient to the House to include it in this order.
The hon. Member for Dudley asked three specific questions. I am not sure whether I have them in the order in which he originally asked them, but essentially one of them is concerned with residence abroad. This is a drafting Amendment. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to paragraph 5:
In article 2(2) of the Principal Order for the words 'been so resident' at the end of the third line thereof, there shall be substituted the words 'been outside the United Kingdom'.
The original wording was not entirely clear. We believe that as the position has been brought into some doubt by a particular court case it would be advisable for us to define precisely what the expression we have used hitherto means. The weakness of the original order is that it does not specify what "resident" means. The only practicable way of administering the provision is to have regard to the time the importer was actually outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, we have amended the wording which now puts the position beyond doubt. We think that will be helpful.
Another point concerned the drafting of the original order. The provision with which we are concerned is the one I mentioned in my summary remarks. The order provides for personal reliefs, the philosophy being that the goods on which the reliefs are given are for the personal use of the importer or his dependants.
The order accordingly—in several Articles, for example, 8(i) and 10—makes it a breach of the conditions of the relief to dispose of the goods in this country. The crucial word is "dispose". It does so by providing that
the goods shall not be, or be offered to be, lent, hired, pledged, given away, exchanged, sold or otherwise disposed of",
and we are advised that the wording may be defective in that the phrase "offered for sale" has acquired a technical meaning and cannot necessarily be construed in its ordinary every-day meaning. An advertisement offering an article for sale is not "offering for sale" within the meaning of the laws of contract but is merely an "invitation to treat". To


close this technical loophole the amending order inserts the words "exposed or advertised" in each of the relevant passages so that they will now read:
the goods shall not be, or be offered, exposed or advertised to be, lent, hired",
and so on.

Dr. Gilbert: I did not make myself clear on one point. It was on Article 6(i) of the original order. That paragraph says:
the goods shall not be, or be offered to be, hired, pledged, given away, exchanged, sold or otherwise disposed of
and so on. There is nothing about "being lent". In every other activity which shall terminate the relief the word "lent" appears. It is in Article 14(ii) and in Article 10 of the original order. I was interested in the omission of "lent".

Mr. Higgins: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I think that I can give him an explanation. I am advised that in that Article the word "lent" is not used because there is no objection to the goods being used by some other entitled person. This is allowed for by Article 5(c) of the original order which says:
the goods are intended solely for his or his dependants' personal use or that of some other entitled person".
These provisions do not apply in the context of the other Articles of the original order to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point on the status of forces in this country. Perhaps he would refresh my memory on that.

Dr. Gilbert: I have not studied this as closely as I should have done, but Article 13 appears to introduce a change of substance in Article 15(2) of the principal order, whereas I understood that most of the changes were of a drafting nature. There seems to be a clear difference about those parts of Article 15(i) of the original order which shall apply henceforth to members of visiting forces.

Mr. Higgins: I think that I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on this. I can see that it may seem to be a point of substance. It is concerned with visiting forces. The existing order provides conditional relief for goods imported by members of visiting forces. The NATO Status of Forces Agreement defines "importation" for this purpose as including withdrawals from Customs warehouses. We have been advised, however, that withdrawals from warehouses may not be strictly covered by the existing order, and Article 12 of the amending order puts this beyond doubt. A number of these provisions echo all the way down the line, and therefore this confirms existing practice by adding the words
or removed by him from warehouse
after the words "imported by him".
There are a number of consequential amendments to Article 15(1). Article 13 substitutes the paragraph to which I have just referred to achieve the objective which I have just outlined.
It was introduced because there was some doubt about the drafting in the earlier Articles. I am advised that this is a consequential amendment, which achieves the overall objective of simply putting beyond doubt the position of items which are removed from warehouses by people who happen to be members of visiting forces of NATO.
I hope that I have put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. This is largely a technical matter but we thought it right to tidy it up rather than that there should be any confusion about it in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) Order 1970 (Amendment) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 838), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

ADJOURMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — FAIRGROUNDS (SAFETY)

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on the subject of safety in travelling fairs, and I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his willingness to take part in it.
There is not a Member of this House who has not at some time or other enjoyed the pleasures of the fairground. The same can be said of countless numbers of our fellow citizens. One has only to go to the seaside or sites occupied by travelling fairs to find testimony to that. The thrills and noise of the fairground have an attraction for people of all ages. The fairground is a place of pleasure and enjoyment. But unfortunately many things which give us pleasure and enjoyment can turn equally to being means of bringing sadness and tragedy, and the fairground is no exception. One has only to recall the bad holiday tragedy at Battersea Pleasure Park to realise that.
Although I have used the Battersea illustration of how tragedy can come so suddenly, it is not my purpose to deal with permanent pleasure grounds or amusement arcades because they are not in any way alike to travelling fairgrounds in their manner of operation. I shall refer to them only as a means of clarification to show that there are differences between them and travelling fairs.
As I have said, accidents can and do happen at fairgrounds, and since they are places to which millions of our people are attracted, I believe that they merit the attention of the House so that we can identify the problem and, where necessary, take steps to eradicate the hazards which create it. In this way, I believe we shall help a lot in creating confidence in the public in the enjoyment and pleasure to be found at fairgrounds.
I have seen it alleged that considerable numbers of people are injured at pleasure fairs each week, such high figures as 1,000 or 2,000 a week being quoted. It has, further, been stated in these allegations that many of the accidents are caused by defective appliances or apparatus. I must challenge the validity of those allegations since there is no supporting evidence to show them to be accurate. Indeed, the Home Office Circular

48/72—"Safety in Fairgrounds"—makes exactly the same point.
Regrettably, the information we have on this subject is very scanty. Therefore, to gain greater accuracy, I have consulted the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, which is the only organisation concerned specifically and exclusively with the organisation and running of travelling fairs in the United Kingdom, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, whose experience in accident prevention is paramount. They have both provided me with information concerning the number of fatal accidents at fairgrounds and pleasure parks from 1963 to 1970. This information is confirmed in information which has been collected by the Home Office during this same period, namely, that 15 fatal accidents occured at fairgrounds, both travelling and permanent during the period of these years.
Of these 15 fatalities only seven can be identified as having happened at travelling fairs and of these seven I am informed that in only one, namely a machine known as an "Octopus" in 1967, was an accident caused by a defect in the machine. A further accident in these seven happened to an employee who was electrocuted while working on a generating plant. An accident of this nature is not a characteristic solely of the fairground. If this evening we were debating industrial safety—a phrase I do not like using—or industrial accident prevention, we would discover that this kind of accident happens much more frequently in other industries than on the fairground.
Returning to the question of fatal accidents, the details are as follows. There was one from a "Swirl" or "Skid" due to probable failure of supervision at a busy time. In this accident the car was overloaded. The accident took place in 1970 at Salisbury. Another accident occurred on a "Cyclone Twist" in 1963 when a girl fell out and was caught between the car and platform. But there was no defect in the machine on this occasion. As a result of the accident the manufacturer modified the design of the machine to leave a clear space underneath. Another of these accidents occurred when a person walked in front of a moving car. The person was not a passenger on the machine. The remaining two fatalities occurred when


people fell out of cars, and at least one person was sitting on the edge despite a warning. There was no defect in either machine.
There were two serious injuries in the incident involving the fatality with the defective "Octopus" machine in 1967. There have been approximately 10 other cases of serious injury known to the Showmen's Guild in the period 1963–70. Of this number two people were badly injured due to an admitted defect in a "Dive Bomber" in 1964. The remainder were not caused by the machine involved in the accident but by misuse by the public, subject, of course, to any possible criticism of the operator for not preventing it.
Other injuries certainly occur, but the figures have been exaggerated. The best evidence of the extent of such injuries is the St. John Ambulance Brigade, which is in attendance at all major fairs. I am further informed that the Showmen's Guild has on occasion taken an analysis, of which Hampstead Heath on a busy, fine August Bank Holiday Monday in 1970 was typical. That revealed that 29 persons were reported as having suffered injury, or having reported to the ambulance facilities. Only five had any connection with the rides and only two were of a significant nature. Neither of these accidents was due to defective machines.
These figures tally with a similar census taken in 1964 by the Guild at Newcastle Town Moor. In my constituency of Neath, which holds one of the largest travelling fairs in Wales there is evidence in a letter from the St. John Ambulance Brigade, dated 23rdSept., 1970, which further supports that I have been contending concerning minor injuries.
There is also in the allegations made a suggestion that poor maintenance and defective equipment is the cause. I would remind the House that the travelling fair does not stay in one place for much more than a fortnight and therefore inspection and maintenance is much more easily carried out. The World's Fair of Saturday, 24th June, quotes Mr. T. H. Jackson, Clerk and Engineer to Marlow, Buckinghamshire, Urban District Council as telling council officers last week that if Marlow Bridge had been taken down and put up again every two weeks

like the travelling showmen's rides it would not have broken.
To quote from a letter written by Mr. Robert Edwards of the Sunday Mirror, which carried out an investigation following the tragedy at Battersea:
May I add that our reporter was most impressed with the way in which the inspections were carried out; and, apart from one or two very minor faults in respect of which repair notices were issued, also with the standard of equipment.
Taking into account the number of travelling rides and the number of fairs attended it is estimated that at least 10 million rides are given annually. Therefore if the known number of significant casualties are doubled the accident rate for an adventurous form of entertainment, such as the fairground is, compared favourably with any other form of activity involving movement, whether or not any form of statutory inspection was involved.
It is not disputed that accidents take place on travelling fairgrounds but I believe that I have been able to show that the position can be grossly exaggerated. I urge the Minister to resist the blandishments being held out to him to legislate in these matters. I suggest that he relies upon the proper use of existing powers which I am sure would have the backing and support of the responsible bodies to which I have referred.
I have a final suggestion and it is that a more efficient system of collecting information about fairground accidents be instituted. It is only on the basis of sound information about the problems that solutions can be found. This is as true of travelling fairgrounds as of any other human activity.

10.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): This is a timely debate, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for raising this subject now and for the way in which he has introduced it. We are in the midst of the fun fair season, with an average of about 150 travelling fairground events each week, in addition to the 25 or so at permanent amusement parks mainly at holiday resorts.
The public are anxious about safety, and all of us who are involved in this—the Government, the local authorities and


others, fairground operators in particular—must do our utmost to allay that anxiety.
The hon. Member has spoken mainly about the problem of travelling fairs, but we all realise that our debate today is overshadowed by the tragic accident at Battersea Festival Gardens on 30th May as a result of which five children have died, and 14 people, mainly children, were injured. My right hon. Friend and I were deeply distressed to learn of that accident and its consequences.
Investigations into the cause are being conducted by the Metropolitan Police with the help of engineers from the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment. I cannot say anything further at present about this accident. The coroner's inquest is to be held on 9th August.
Battersea pleasure fair is in a permanent amusement park, but whenever an accident occurs on a ride of any sort, whether in a permanent amusement park or in a travelling fair, it naturally gives rise to public concern about the safety of rides generally and raises the question whether existing safety arrangements and legislation are adequate. I, too, want to say a word, as the hon. Member did, about the scale of the problem and the number of accidents. I think the hon. Member has done the House a great service in putting this in perspective.
As far as I know, the tragedy at Battersea was the worst accident which has ever occurred at a fairground in this country. There have been other fatalities in fairgrounds over the years, but, fortunately, they have been few in number. Here, my figures are slightly different from those of the hon. Member, but these are figures I have from the Office of Population Census and Surveys and they show that there were 17 deaths in England and Wales involving fairground apparatus between 1963 and 1970 inclusive. These figures cover all pleasure fairs, permanent and travelling.
As the hon. Member said, accidents on rides at fairgrounds are not necessarily attributable to mechanical faults in the devices. I am sorry that I cannot say, from the information which we have, precisely how many of the 17 fatal accidents were caused by possible defects of this kind and how many were caused

by other factors. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving some examples. He drew attention to the need for more complete information. I do not disagree with that at all, because we have not at present national statistics, relating to non-fatal accidents in fairgrounds. I shall consider very carefully the point which the hon. Member made at the end of his speech about that.
I agree with him that these allegations which have been made have been a good deal exaggerated—allegations that, say, 1,000 or 2,000 people a week are being injured at pleasure fairs, and that many of the accidents are caused—so it is alleged—by defective appliances and apparatus. I want to stress this: as far as I am aware, there is no reliable evidence to support estimates of this kind. In fact, the information we have at the Home Office—and what the hon. Member said bears this out—suggests that the accident rate is quite low. To give one example, in the 12 months ended 30th June, 1970, 21 accidents in fairgrounds and amusement parks were reported to the Metropolitan Police. Two of these were thought to have been due to equipment which had become dangerous from lack of proper maintenance and inspection.
Even though the number of fairground accidents attributable to defective apparatus may be very low, it is obviously necessary that everything possible should be done to ensure that fairground apparatus is safe and that it is kept in a safe condition, although part of the excitement of fairground rides is that they often appear to be adventurous or risky. As far as I know manufacturers of fairground equipment are well aware of the importance from the safety aspect of sound construction and design and the need for safety devices which will come into operation if there is a failure of any kind.
Accidents which are attributable to badly designed apparatus are rare. But apparatus which is safely designed and safely constructed will not remain safe unless it is properly maintained. It must be examined regularly by a competent engineer and any defects which are revealed must receive immediate attention if the continued safety of the public using the ride is to be ensured. In addition, those who are concerned with the


everyday supervision and operation of each ride must watch out for any signs of improper working which could have a bearing on safety. Even if their knowledge of the mechanical operation of the ride is limited, they will often be able to tell if something is not quite right and draw attention to it.
I agree that preventing accidents is a more positive way of looking at the problem than merely talking about safety. I will say a word about legislation and then about voluntary schemes.
One way in which the safety of fairground apparatus and its maintenance can be controlled is by means of legislation. I accept the hon. Gentleman's scepticism whether more legislation is needed, although this will be looked at carefully.
Local authorities, including the London boroughs, have power to make and enforce byelaws relating to fairgrounds, whether static or mobile, under Section 75 of the Public Health Act, 1961. Byelaws may be made under this section for the purpose of securing safe and adequate means of entrance to and exit from pleasure fairs; for the prevention and suppression of nuisances; and for the preservation of sanitary conditions, order and public safety. In particular, these powers enable local authorities to make byelaws relating to the safe construction and maintenance of amusements such as roundabouts, switchback railways, dodgems and similar devices.
The Home Office has prepared model byelaws for the guidance of local authorities which make express provision for the safe construction and design of all amusement devices and require them to be maintained in this condition. The terms of these model byelaws, which were discussed and agreed with the local authority associations and the organisations representing pleasure fair operators, are kept under review and we shall now re-examine them urgently to see whether any amendments are required.
To bring the House up to date, 53 local authorities have so far made byelaws either under the 1961 Act or under local Acts. This represents only a small proportion of the local authorities who could take advantage of the byelaw-making power but not all local authorities are

visited by travelling fairs and some prefer to rely on voluntary systems of control such as those operated by the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain or by managers of individual fairgrounds.
That brings me to the second recourse we have for preventing accidents—the voluntary schemes. The Home Office has welcomed the voluntary inspection scheme for fairground equipment which the Showmen's Guild introduced in 1966. This scheme ensures that every machine operated by a Guild member is inspected by a competent engineer in accordance with the Guild's Rules at least once every year. Those local authorities which prefer to rely on voluntary schemes such as this are therefore in a position to take advantage of the Guild's scheme, for example, by refusing permission for travelling fairs operated by members of the Guild to be sited on land which comes under that local authority's control unless current certificates of fitness relating to every ride in the fair can be produced. In a circular about fairground safety issued by the Home Office to local authorities on 3rd March this year, attention was drawn to the Showmen's Guild's inspection scheme and it may well be that the scheme, and the certificates of inspection issued under it, are proving to be helpful to local authorities. The Guild, over many years, has co-operated with the Home Office with a view to ensuring the safety of the apparatus in travelling fairs and this co-operation has been very much welcomed. I want also to commend the safety code for operators that the Showmen's Guild issued to its members some two years ago after consultations with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
I end by bringing the picture right up to date, in view of the most recent accident at Battersea. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has directed that the existing law relating to safety in fairgrounds should be reviewed to see whether and in what way it needs to be strengthened. Urgent discussions are to be held with the local authority associations and with the Greater London Council. If those discussions lead to proposals for new legislation, other interested organisations, including the Showmen's Guild, will then be consulted. In the meantime—and this is relevant to the position during the


months of this summer—local authorities have been asked by the Home Office to take all practicable steps within their present control arrangements, whether statutory or voluntary, to ensure the safety of members of the public visiting fairgrounds.
I want to appeal to local authorities to tackle this urgently. All over Britain this

summer millions of people will be enjoying themselves at fairgrounds and amusement parks, and we must make certain that, so far as humanly possible, accidents are prevented and parents especially can have peace of mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.